Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.foodhygienealerts

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Food Hygiene Alerts — 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 food safety consultants, who'll contact 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 food safety consultants, who'll contact 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two-step validation flow, the requirement to show consent line, the confirmation token, the email link click before provider visibility, and the exact consent wording. This is exceptionally transparent for a multi-step submission tool.

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?

Though longer than average, it is dense and every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, step 1 behavior, step 2 behavior, consent definition. The two-step structure is front-loaded and logically ordered, avoiding wasted words while delivering all necessary procedural detail.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and a nested object parameter, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input source, return values from step 1, the second-call condition, the email-link behavior, and the consent requirement. Nothing critical for invoking the tool 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful usage semantics: 'answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', 'confirmation' as the step-1 token used only in step 2, and consent's exact meaning. This goes beyond the schema's static parameter 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 states the specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Food Hygiene Alerts') and reinforces what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling enquiry_fields tool by referencing it as the source of field keys, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 two-step usage instructions: first call with answers and consent=true to get a summary/token, then a second call after person approval. It also states the when-not ('NOT a purchase') and implicitly guides the agent to use enquiry_fields for key names, which covers alternatives and conditions well.

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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it, and checker_tree provides the full map for reasoning. The enquiry tools are similarly separated into describe, fields, and submit, with no meaningful overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

The two prefixes checker_ and enquiry_ create clear grouping, but suffix patterns vary: start/answer are verbs while tree is a noun, and describe/fields/submit mix verb and noun forms. This is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two purposes: a decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool is necessary and none feel redundant.

Completeness5/5

The checker workflow is fully covered with start, step-by-step answer, and full tree access. The enquiry flow is also complete, including field metadata, explanation, and the two-step consent-confirmed submission process.

Resources