Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.kneereplacementcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Knee Replacement 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 private orthopaedic hospitals and clinics, 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 private orthopaedic hospitals and clinics, 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the two-step stateful behavior, validation, consent text, the confirmation token, the email with the click link, and that providers see the enquiry only after the link is clicked. This goes well beyond a simple mutation summary.

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 front-loaded with the key caveat ('NOT a purchase') and organizes the flow as Step 1 and Step 2. It is detailed but every sentence contributes necessary procedural or safety information, including the exact consent text and the email-link condition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains both call phases, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what to show the person, and the post-submission email-link behavior. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 semantics: answers must be drawn from enquiry_fields, consent must correspond to the exact consent line, and confirmation is the step-1 token used only after user approval. This clarifies the temporal relationship between the three parameters in a way the schema alone does not.

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 Knee Replacement Cost,' and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools as the submission action, and the title reinforces the two-step nature.

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: call once without confirmation to validate and get a token, then call again with the token only after the person agrees. It references 'enquiry_fields' for keying answers, giving useful context, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling tools or when not to use it beyond the 'not a purchase' note.

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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the data schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap in their purposes.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools all include the word 'enquiry' and use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are object-first while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first. This mixed convention is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is the right scope for a single, narrow enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place: one to orient, one to define the schema, and one to submit.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full lifecycle of the enquiry: understanding what it is, discovering the required fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. No obvious missing operations are needed for the stated purpose.

Resources