Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.hmolicencechecker

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to HMO Licence Checker — 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 relevant HMO 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 relevant HMO 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

A4.8/5.0
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 excellently. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the exact consent wording, the side effect of sending an email, and the condition that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. This is far beyond minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: the non-purchase disclaimer is front-loaded, and the two-step workflow is structured sequentially. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the two-step workflow, consent requirement, confirmation token, and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what step 1 returns, how to use that return value, what happens after step 2, and what the person must do before providers see the enquiry.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token from step 1 used after the person approves the summary. Each parameter's role in the workflow is clarified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to HMO Licence Checker,' and immediately distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is clearly described, which fully separates it from sibling enquiry-related 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 instructions: when to call first, what to do with the returned summary and consent line, and when to call again with the confirmation token. It references enquiry_fields for answer keys but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like checker_start or checker_answer, so it loses a point on explicit alternative routing.

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
Disambiguation4/5

The checker_* tools are clearly separated from the enquiry_* tools, and each has a distinct role: start, traverse, or view the full decision tree. However, checker_answer and checker_tree could be confused by an agent looking to answer a single question, since both expose question/option/verdict data.

Naming Consistency3/5

The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes provide a useful grouping, but the individual names mix conventions: checker_start and checker_tree are noun-like, checker_answer and enquiry_describe are noun-verb, enquiry_fields is noun-noun, and submit_enquiry is verb-noun. The pattern is readable but not consistently applied.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped count for a server covering two related workflows: the HMO licence decision guide and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant or excessive.

Completeness5/5

The decision guide is fully covered with start, step-by-step traversal, and full-tree reasoning, enabling both interactive and end-to-end use. The enquiry flow is also complete: context, schema, validation, consent, and two-step submission are all represented.

Resources