Skip to main content
Glama

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Glazier Prices — 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: "Send my contact details to up to three relevant local glaziers, chosen by Glazier Prices, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "answers": "<answers>",
      "consent": "<consent>"
    },
    "name": "submit_enquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three relevant local glaziers, chosen by Glazier Prices, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to relevant local glaziers, who'll quote me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three relevant local glaziers, chosen by Glazier Prices, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the two-phase submit gate, and the downstream email-confirmation step before any provider sees the data. It also defines exactly what consent means, which is a material behavioral fact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded and cleanly organized into Step 1 and Step 2, so the critical sequencing is easy to extract. It loses a point for re-quoting the consent sentence verbatim when that text already appears in the schema's consent parameter description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line, and a confirmation token; step 2 results in submission and an email the person must click. Combined with the consent semantics and step gating, an agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema cannot convey: it explains that 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true at both steps, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1. This ties the three parameters into the two-call sequence rather than restating them.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Glazier Prices') and immediately bounds the action with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' which prevents the most likely misreading. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from its informational siblings (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) by being the actual submission step.

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 two-step workflow is spelled out with an explicit precondition for each call: step 1 requires answers plus consent=true, and step 2 is gated on 'only if the person agrees' and requires the confirmation token. It references enquiry_fields for the field keys, but it does not explicitly contrast when to call this versus enquiry_describe, leaving one sibling relationship implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources