Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.firealarmservicingcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Fire Alarm Servicing 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 fire alarm servicing companies, 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 relevant fire alarm servicing companies, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, the summary/consent line/token returned in step 1, the need for a second call, and the email-link click requirement before providers see the enquiry. It also spells out the exact consent wording, leaving no hidden behavior.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place given the two-step, consent-sensitive workflow. It is front-loaded with the most important caveat (not a purchase/quote) and then logically structured around steps 1 and 2.

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 multi-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what to send, what comes back in step 1, when to make the second call, the consent requirement, the email-link step, and the practical consequence for the user. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and match the quoted wording, and confirmation must be the token from step 1 after approval. This goes well beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry'), identifies the target resource (Fire Alarm Servicing Cost / human providers), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also frames the two-step submission flow clearly, making its role distinct from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 invocation guidance: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also states what the tool is NOT for (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), giving clear when-not-to-use context.

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 overlap between them, so an agent can confidently select the right tool for each step.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are readable and semantically related, but the patterns are mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the noun, while submit_enquiry follows verb_noun. This is a minor inconsistency rather than chaos, so it earns a middle score.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a narrowly defined enquiry submission workflow. Each tool earns its place: orientation, schema discovery, and submission.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle described: explaining the process, enumerating required fields, and submitting with explicit consent and confirmation handling. No obvious missing step or dead end exists for the stated purpose.

Resources