Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.enginerebuildcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Engine Rebuild 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 engine builders near me, who'll quote 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 engine builders near me, who'll quote 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-submitting first step, the email-link gate before providers see the enquiry, the exact consent text, and the confirmation-token mechanism. No annotation contradiction.

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 core purpose, then organized into 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' with explicit conditions. Every sentence carries operational weight; the flagged caveat and consent phrasing each earn their place despite being long.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return value essentials (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the full lifecycle, including the post-submission email click. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds procedural meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the same answers and consent=true are used in both calls and that confirmation carries the token from step 1 — contextual linkage the schema alone cannot convey.

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?

State a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Engine Rebuild Cost') and an explicit exclusion ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). Clearly distinct from siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which involve inspecting rather than submitting.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The two-step protocol is explicit: call once to validate, show the summary and consent line, and only call the second time 'if the person agrees.' It also points to enquiry_fields for the answer keys. Does not explicitly name when to prefer enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields, hence not a 5.

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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no functional overlap even though the domain is narrow.

Naming Consistency3/5

Two tools share the 'enquiry_' prefix while the third uses 'submit_enquiry', mixing noun-prefixed names with a verb-first name. The pattern is readable and semantically related, but not fully consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools are well-scoped for this single enquiry workflow: describe, fields, and submit. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full required journey: understanding the process, retrieving the input schema, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations within the server's stated purpose.

Resources