Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.isocertificationcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to ISO Certification 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 ISO consultants and certification bodies, 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 relevant ISO consultants and certification bodies, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation behavior, the confirmation token, the consent wording, the email with a click link, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. This is unusually transparent for a tool with no annotations.

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 given the two-step complexity. It is well-structured with explicit 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' markers, front-loads the most important caveat ('not a purchase'), and avoids filler while retaining all essential workflow details.

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 tool's complexity, the absence of annotations, and the lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the caller receives after Step 1, what conditions must be met for Step 2, what happens after submission, and how the consent check works. The only minor omission is a formal response schema, but the description narratively covers the return values.

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?

Even though the schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, the description adds crucial semantics: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact quoted legal line, and confirmation is the token returned in Step 1. This goes beyond the schema by explaining 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 verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to ISO Certification Cost.' It also clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and emphasizes the two-step flow, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: Step 1 with answers and consent=true to receive a summary and token, then Step 2 only after the person agrees, reusing the token. It also sets a clear exclusion ('not a purchase') and explains the required consent condition, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke the tool.

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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are readable and all reference 'enquiry', but the pattern is inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' use a noun-first style while 'submit_enquiry' uses a verb-first style. A fully consistent verb_noun set would be clearer.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a focused enquiry-submission flow. Each tool addresses a distinct step: understanding, schema retrieval, and submission.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the enquiry submission lifecycle: describing the process, exposing required fields, validating consent, and submitting with confirmation. No obvious missing operations are needed for this narrow domain.

Resources