Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.gearboxreconditioningcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Gearbox Reconditioning 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 local gearbox specialists and garages, 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 local gearbox specialists and garages, 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the validation/summary/token behavior of step 1, the email-link-required-before-provider-sees-it behavior of step 2, and the exact consent text. This is far more transparent than a generic 'submits an enquiry' statement.

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?

Every sentence is functional, and the most important caveats are front-loaded ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The length is justified by the two-step interaction complexity, and the step-by-step structure makes it easy to follow.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is self-sufficient: it states step 1's return values, the required user action, the email behavior, and the consent wording. Nothing needed to call 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. The description adds meaningful process semantics beyond the schema: the same answers and consent=true are used in both steps, and the confirmation token comes from step 1. It also directs the agent to enquiry_fields for the answer keys.

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 Gearbox Reconditioning Cost'), explicitly negates purchase/quote, and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the submission step. The reference to enquiry_fields signals the broader flow without ambiguity.

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?

Provides a detailed two-step protocol with explicit conditions: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again only after agreement with the confirmation token. It also gives a when-not-to-use caveat ('NOT a purchase'), but it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a completely distinct purpose: describing the process, providing field schema, and handling the submission flow. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names include 'enquiry' and are clear, but two use 'enquiry_' prefix while the third uses 'submit_enquiry' with a verb-first order. This minor deviation is easy to read and not confusing.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is perfectly scoped for a single enquiry form: describe, fields, and submit cover the necessary interactions without bloat or missing functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: explaining the process, gathering validated input, and submitting with a two-step confirmation mechanism. There are no dead ends or obvious missing operations within the stated scope.

Resources