Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.fireriskquotes

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Fire Risk Quotes — 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 risk assessors, 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 risk assessors, 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, the intermediate summary/consent/token, the need for a second call, the email link requirement, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks. It even supplies the exact consent wording.

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 every sentence earns its place: scope disclaimer, step sequencing, and consent wording are all necessary. Key warnings (NOT a purchase) are front-loaded.

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 or annotations exist, yet the description explains the return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the two-step invocation, and the post-submission email/click behavior. An agent has everything needed to call the tool 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation is the step-1 token returned only after approval. This clarifies how the parameters interact across the two calls.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: submits an enquiry to Fire Risk Quotes, and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is named in the title and description, making the tool's unique role clear relative to enquiry_describe/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?

Provides an explicit step-by-step protocol: call once with answers plus consent=true to validate and get a confirmation token, then only call again with the token if the person agrees. It also states when not to use it (not a purchase/quote) and references enquiry_fields for the answer keys.

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: one explains the workflow, one provides the field schema, and one handles the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' lead with the noun, while 'submit_enquiry' leads with the verb. Still readable, but not a consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a single-purpose enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and the set is neither bloated nor too thin.

Completeness5/5

The workflow is fully covered: orientation, field discovery, validation, two-step confirmation, and submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.

Resources