Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.iht2027calculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to IHT 2027 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 relevant estate planning professional, 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 estate planning professional, 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses validation, returned artifacts, consent gating, the two-step side effects, the email link requirement, and provider visibility. This is rich, concrete behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 description is front-loaded with the key constraint and organized in discrete steps, but it is dense and repeats the exact consent text already present in the schema. It remains valuable and readable, though slightly 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?

For a two-step mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains what step 1 returns, what to show the person, what to send in step 2, and what happens after submission. Nothing an agent needs to orchestrate the flow is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical meaning: answers must use field keys from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact consent statement, and confirmation is the step-1 token used only after the person approves. The optional confirmation parameter's role is fully explained.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to IHT 2027 Calculator'), immediately excludes purchase/quote semantics, and the title adds 'to human providers'. This clearly differentiates it from calculation and schema-description siblings.

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?

The two-step protocol is explicit: call once with answers and consent=true to get a summary/token, then call again only if the person agrees with the same answers plus the token. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys and states when the tool is not appropriate.

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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the submission process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names do not follow a single pattern: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-led, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-verb reversed, and enquiry_fields is noun-noun. The inconsistency makes expected naming behavior hard to predict.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for the calculator-plus-enquiry workflow. Each tool serves a necessary step, from running the calculation to understanding it, inspecting fields, and submitting with confirmation.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full user journey: calculate the IHT figure, understand the calculator's inputs and assumptions, read guidance on the enquiry, inspect required fields, and submit with an explicit two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated domain.

Resources