site

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Energy Audit Cost — 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 relevant local energy assessors, who'll quote me directly."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`answers`	Yes	the person's answers, keyed by field key
`consent`	Yes	true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to relevant local energy assessors, who'll quote me directly.
`confirmation`	No	the 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.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-purchase/non-guaranteed nature, the two-step requirement, consent meaning, email link prerequisite, and exact consent wording. This is exceptional transparency.

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?

Front-loaded with the key distinction ('NOT a purchase'), then logically structured step 1 and step 2. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains exactly what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and step 2 outcomes (email link, provider visibility). Complete for an agent to execute the two-step flow correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial flow context: answers keyed by field key, consent must be true only when agreed, and confirmation token from step 1 used in step 2. This goes well beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting an enquiry to human providers, explicitly noting it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It distinguishes from siblings (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) by being the submission step, and explains the two-step nature.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step instructions: step 1 call with answers and consent=true to get summary/consent/token, then step 2 call only if person agrees with same answers, consent=true, and token. It also specifies when to use each step and that provider only sees after email link click.

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

All site tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no overlap in purpose or confusion about which tool to call.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' prefix, making them easy to group. Minor inconsistency exists because enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first, but this remains readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools are exactly right for this narrow domain: one for orientation, one for input schema, and one for the actual submission. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the enquiry workflow: understanding the process, retrieving the fields, validating and submitting with consent, and handling the confirmation step. No obvious lifecycle gap exists for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?