Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by uk.co.idvdeadline
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to IDV Deadline — 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 accountancy and tax firms, chosen by IDV Deadline, 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 accountancy and tax firms, chosen by IDV Deadline, 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 a relevant Companies House authorised agent, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three accountancy and tax firms, chosen by IDV Deadline, 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 the validation-then-submit sequence, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), that nothing is submitted until step 2, and that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the data. This is exactly the side-effect and consent disclosure an agent needs for a non-reversible external action.

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?

Front-loads the critical disambiguation and uses a clean step 1 / step 2 structure. It loses a little by quoting the full consent sentence verbatim, which the schema already carries for the `consent` parameter, making that block partially redundant.

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, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns and what the person ultimately receives. For a nested-object, two-phase, externally visible action, nothing an agent needs to call it 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, but the description adds real value: it ties `answers` to the field keys produced by the sibling enquiry_fields tool, spells out that `consent` is only true after agreement, and explains that `confirmation` is the token returned by step 1. That sequencing context goes beyond the schema's per-field 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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (an enquiry to IDV Deadline) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can tell this apart from the checker_* and enquiry_* siblings without opening any 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 two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. The gating condition for the second call is stated rather than left to inference.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources