Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.firecompliancecost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Fire Compliance 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 safety 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 safety 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the two-step side-effect behavior, the confirmation token requirement, the email link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent condition. This is unusually transparent.

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-structured with clearly numbered steps and front-loaded caveats. Every sentence earns its place: the consent text is included verbatim, the two-step flow is unambiguous, and no unnecessary filler is present.

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?

Given the tool's two-step complexity, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the inputs, the intermediate return value, the condition for step 2, the post-submission email behavior, and points to enquiry_fields for key conventions. Nothing essential 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 the schema already documents answers, consent, and confirmation. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how the parameters relate across the two steps, especially the reuse of the same answers and the role of the confirmation token from step 1. It does not merely repeat the 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 verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Fire Compliance Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also conveys the essential two-step nature of the tool, making its purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from transaction/purchase tools.

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 description gives an explicit, sequential usage protocol: first call with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also points to enquiry_fields for the correct answer keys. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with all sibling tools, but the when to call and when not to call conditions are clearly stated.

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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: enquiry_describe provides the narrative overview, enquiry_fields gives the exact schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are lowercase snake_case and clearly revolve around 'enquiry', which keeps them readable. The minor inconsistency is that two tools use a noun-first pattern while submit_enquiry uses verb-noun, but this does not create real confusion.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is exactly the right scope for this server's single-purpose enquiry workflow. There is no bloat, and each tool earns its place in the flow.

Completeness5/5

The server fully covers its apparent domain: explaining the process, exposing the required fields, and handling the two-step acknowledged submission flow. No obvious lifecycle gap exists for the stated purpose of submitting a fire compliance cost enquiry.

Resources