Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.itsupportcostcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to IT Support Cost 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 relevant IT support providers, 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 IT support providers, 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and successfully discloses the two-step behavior, validation return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the email link requirement, and the exact meaning of consent. It also flags that the enquiry is not immediately visible to providers until the person clicks the email link, preventing a realistic misuse.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes: scope, exclusions, step 1, step 2, consent definition. It is front-loaded with the most important caveat and organized by step, though the consent line could be trimmed to avoid repeating the schema text.

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 description is complete for a complex two-step submission tool with no output schema. It covers what the person must be shown, the exact consent text, the token handoff, and the email link behavior, leaving no material gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 workflow semantics: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must equal the quoted agreement, and the confirmation token bridges step 1 to step 2. This meaningfully enriches the raw schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('submits') and resource ('IT Support Cost Calculator') and sharply distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The title and first sentence make the tool's function unmistakable relative to siblings like calculate and enquiry_describe.

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: first call with answers and consent, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees with the confirmation token. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond 'not a purchase', but the procedural guidance makes the intended invocation clear.

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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct function: running the calculator, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. There is no practical overlap between the calculation tools and the enquiry tools, and the two describe tools cover different objects.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes standalone verbs (calculate), verb_noun compounds (submit_enquiry), and noun-initial names (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields). The naming is readable and consistently snake_case, but it does not follow a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a single calculator plus enquiry workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step or piece of information, and none feel redundant or extraneous.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full user journey: understand the calculator, compute a cost, understand the enquiry process, inspect the fields, and submit with two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources