Skip to main content
Glama

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Heritage Statement 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: "Send my contact details to up to three heritage consultants, chosen by Heritage Statement Cost, 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 heritage consultants, chosen by Heritage Statement Cost, 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 heritage consultants, who'll send me fee proposals directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three heritage consultants, chosen by Heritage Statement Cost, 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

A4.8/5.0
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: it discloses that the call is non-binding, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees the data, and spells out exactly what consent authorizes (contact details to up to three consultants, per-firm notification, ability to stop). That is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 crucial disambiguation ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded, and the two steps are clearly sequenced. It is dense and the quoted consent text partially duplicates the schema's consent description, but every clause still serves the caller.

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, yet the description tells the agent what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a required click). Combined with the two-step protocol and consent definition, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 would be 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers are keyed by the field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true in both steps, and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and only supplied after approval. It stops short of documenting the token's format or lifetime.

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 Heritage Statement Cost) and immediately rules out the most likely misreading: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also names enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so the agent can place it among its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit staged protocol — call once with answers+consent to validate, then call again only if the person agrees, this time with the confirmation token. The condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees') and the required human-facing step ('show the person the summary and the consent line') leave nothing to inference.

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