Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.employercostcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Employer Cost Calculator — 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 relevant accountant or payroll 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 relevant accountant or payroll 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the first call only validates and returns a token, that the second call actually submits the enquiry, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the person clicks a link in the email. This is rich, honest behavioral context.

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 well-organized: it front-loads the purpose and exclusions, then walks through the two steps in order. Every sentence earns its place by conveying a constraint, a required action, or an important behavioral detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides enough detail about expected returns and outcomes: Step 1 returns a summary, consent line, and confirmation token; Step 2 results in submission and an email link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry. The two-step workflow and consent condition are fully specified.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds important meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and confirmation must be the token returned from Step 1. It also clarifies that consent=true means the person has read and agreed to the exact data-sharing statement.

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 Employer Cost Calculator' — and explicitly distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This makes it easy for an agent to understand the tool's core function and separate it from sibling tools like calculate and enquiry_describe.

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?

The description gives explicit step-by-step usage instructions: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary, then call again only if the person agrees, passing the confirmation token. It also provides clear when-not guidance: this is not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote.

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 targets a clearly different concern: running the calculation, describing the calculator, explaining the enquiry flow, providing the enquiry schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap, and the descriptions make the boundaries obvious.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: calculate is a bare verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe use object-verb order, submit_enquiry uses verb-object order, and enquiry_fields is a noun-noun. The grouping around calculator/enquiry helps, but the verb placement is not predictable across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a two-purpose site covering calculator operation/documentation and enquiry schema/submission. Each tool has a distinct job and none feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The domain is fully covered: users can learn about the calculator, run it, learn about the enquiry process, see the required fields, and submit with two-step consent. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.

Resources