Skip to main content
Glama

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Grain Storage Costs — 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 agricultural building and grain store firms, chosen by Grain Storage Costs, 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." (with form, that guide's own consent line, which enquiry_fields returns)

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
formNoa guide's own form, for a different reader (grain-drying-costs); omit for the site's main form
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three agricultural building and grain store firms, chosen by Grain Storage Costs, 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. (or the chosen form's own consent line)
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three agricultural building and grain store firms, chosen by Grain Storage Costs, 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."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three agricultural building and grain store firms, chosen by Grain Storage Costs, 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. (or the chosen form's own consent line)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / form
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "a guide's own form, for a different reader (grain-drying-costs); omit for the site's main form",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "grain-drying-costs"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three grain store and drying equipment suppliers, chosen by Grain Storage Costs, 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."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three agricultural building and grain store firms, chosen by Grain Storage Costs, 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."
  3. 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 grain store and drying equipment suppliers, who'll quote me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three grain store and drying equipment suppliers, chosen by Grain Storage Costs, 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."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it well: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double opt-in email link, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked, plus exactly what consent authorises (up to three firms, contact directly, opt-out). The gap is failure behaviour — it never says what happens when validation rejects the answers or when the token is wrong/expired, which matters for a two-call mutation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The step structure is front-loaded and the negations come first, which is right. However the full consent paragraph is pasted verbatim into the description when the input schema already contains the identical text, so a substantial fraction of the body is duplicated structured data rather than added value.

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 two-phase, nested-object, consent-bearing submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: gather fields, validate, present summary and consent line to the human, re-submit with token, then email confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to sequence the calls 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 earns an extra point by linking parameters across calls and siblings ('answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', 'same answers' on step 2, form's own consent line supplied by enquiry_fields). It doesn't add format guidance for the token or explain the form enum's scoping beyond the schema's own text.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Grain Storage Costs') and immediately scopes it with negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') that prevent the most likely misclassification. Siblings (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) are implicitly positioned as the sources of fields/consent used here, so an agent can tell what this tool does that they don't.

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?

It gives a precise two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. The gate condition for each call is explicit, and the pre-requisite (answers keyed from enquiry_fields) is named rather than inferred.

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