Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.dronelicencechecker

Submit an ENQUIRY to human providers (two steps; not a purchase)

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Drone Licence Checker — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. Step 1: call with the answers (keyed by field key from enquiry_fields) and consent=true; it validates and returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token — show the person the summary and the consent line. Step 2: only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token; the enquiry is then submitted, and the person receives an email with a link they must click before any provider sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "Happy for my details to go to a CAA-recognised drone training provider, who'll contact me directly."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to a CAA-recognised drone training provider, who'll contact me directly.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step side-effect boundary, returns a summary/consent line/token, requires the token for submission, sends an email with a click link before providers see the enquiry, and quotes the exact consent wording.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the critical 'not a purchase' disclaimer, numbers the steps, and integrates user consent and provider visibility constraints without filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers inputs, validation, outputs, the consent gate, the confirmation token handoff, email follow-up, and the condition under which the provider sees the enquiry.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds real workflow semantics: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent embeds the exact consent text, and confirmation is the token from step 1 passed only in step 2. It explains how all three parameters are used across the two calls.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Drone Licence Checker', and explicitly disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step framing also makes the tool's workflow and purpose immediately distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 submits only after user approval. It also states the prerequisite that answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields and that consent must be true only after the person has agreed, providing clear when-to-call and when-not-to-call guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All site toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start and checker_answer drive the step-by-step guide, checker_tree provides the full tree for offline reasoning, and enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry form a clear documentation-plus-submission flow. There is no real overlap that would cause an agent to misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly predictable with checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes grouping related tools. submit_enquiry breaks the prefix pattern by using verb-first order, but all names are readable snake_case and the semantic grouping is clear.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three support the Drone licence checker decision guide and three support the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and the count is not excessive.

Completeness5/5

The decision guide has start, per-step answering, and full-tree access, covering both interactive use and end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow covers explanation, field schema, and the two-step consent-based submission, so there are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.

Resources