Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.hgvhourscalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to HGV Hours Calculator — 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 a transport compliance specialist, who'll contact 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 a transport compliance specialist, who'll contact 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, the two-step handshake, the consent line, the confirmation token, the email link, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. Nothing about the behavioral contract is hidden.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose, and the two-step workflow is clearly numbered and front-loaded with the most important disambiguation ('NOT a purchase'). It avoids filler while covering all necessary information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nontrivial two-step flow, the description is complete: it explains what step 1 returns, what the agent should show the person, what triggers step 2, and what happens after submission. An agent has enough context to call it correctly in sequence.

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 meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and matches a specific consent line, and the confirmation token is the one returned in step 1. This clarifies how the parameters relate to each other across the two steps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submits') and names the exact resource ('an enquiry to HGV Hours Calculator'), while immediately distinguishing itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This clearly separates it from the sibling calculator and 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit step-by-step usage guidance: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees with the confirmation token. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like enquiry_fields, but the workflow is concrete enough for correct invocation.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct job: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains its inputs/outputs, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the field schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. Even the two describe tools are clearly separated by topic and purpose.

Naming Consistency3/5

The documentation tools follow a noun-first pattern (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), but the action tools are inconsistent: calculate is a bare verb while submit_enquiry is verb_noun. This is readable but not a fully predictable convention.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for this small domain: two calculator-related tools and three enquiry-related tools. Each tool serves a necessary purpose and none feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the apparent purpose: calculate provides the core function, calculator_describe supplies its documentation, and the enquiry flow has schema lookup, flow explanation, and a two-step submission process. There are no obvious missing operations that would leave an agent stuck.

Resources