Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.industrialroofingcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Industrial Roofing 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: "Happy for my details to go to relevant industrial roofing contractors, who'll quote 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 relevant industrial roofing contractors, who'll quote 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

A5/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses validation on the first call, the returned summary/consent line/token, the requirement to show them to the person, the second-call submission, and the email-link requirement before any provider sees the enquiry. This is unusually thorough.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the critical distinction (not a purchase/quote), then structures the two steps clearly and ends with the exact consent line. The length is justified by the procedural complexity.

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?

The tool has a multi-step interaction, consent obligations, a token handoff, and an email-verification consequence. The description covers all of these despite having no output schema to lean on. The only minor omission is error/validation-failure behavior, but the core calling contract is fully specified.

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 the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds valuable meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact quoted agreement text, and confirmation is the token produced in step 1. This clarifies the relationship between parameters and the two-step workflow.

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 action — submitting an enquiry to Industrial Roofing Cost — and immediately disambiguates what it is not: not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are about describing or listing fields rather than submitting.

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 description explicitly provides a two-step invocation protocol: first call with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token, then call again with the token only if the person approves. It also states the consent condition exactly, leaving no ambiguity about when the tool should be called.

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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one explains the process, one provides the input schema, and one handles submission. There is no overlap between describing, field validation, and submitting.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is slightly inconsistent: two tools start with 'enquiry_' (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while one uses a verb-first form (submit_enquiry). The shared prefix provides conceptual consistency, but the verb/noun order varies.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for the narrow purpose of submitting an enquiry to a roofing cost service. Each tool is necessary and there is no bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full flow: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. No obvious missing operations exist for this single-purpose domain.

Resources