Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.forkliftcoursefinder

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Forklift Course Finder — 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 accredited forklift training providers, 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 accredited forklift training providers, 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the validation step, the consent wording, the confirmation-token requirement, the email dispatch, and the critical condition that providers see the enquiry only after the person clicks the emailed link.

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 long but every clause earns its place; the two-step consent flow and email-link behavior genuinely require this much detail. Key constraints are front-loaded at the start, and the wording is structured around Step 1 and Step 2 for easy parsing.

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 stateful two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete. It explains the sequence, expected intermediate artifacts (summary, consent line, token), the consent condition, and the post-submission email-link requirement, leaving an agent with enough context to invoke both steps correctly.

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% and the schema already includes useful descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying each parameter to its step in the workflow ('same answers, consent=true and confirmation token'), clarifying the token's origin and the requirement to reuse the same answers.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Forklift Course Finder') and immediately distinguishes the action with explicit negative scope: NOT a purchase and NOT a guaranteed quote. It also names the two-step flow and references enquiry_fields, making it clearly distinct from the sibling enquiry tools.

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 a precise when-to-use workflow: first call with answers and consent=true to obtain a summary/token, then a second call only if the person approves. It also says when not to use the tool ('not a purchase') and points to enquiry_fields for the correct 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one explains the process, one returns the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the pattern is slightly mixed: two use an enquiry_ prefix while the third leads with the verb submit_. This is a minor deviation from a fully uniform convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for the narrow workflow of describing, inspecting, and submitting an enquiry. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The surface fully covers the enquiry workflow: schema discovery, validation preview, and two-step submission with confirmation token. No obvious missing operations for this domain.

Resources