Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.latentdefectsinsurancecost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Latent Defects Insurance 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 brokers and providers who place latent defects cover, 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 brokers and providers who place latent defects cover, 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 the full disclosure burden and does so well: it warns this is not a purchase or quote, explains validation in step 1, requires showing the consent line, and states that an emailed link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. It also defines consent precisely.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: the non-purchase warning is front-loaded, and the two-step protocol is clearly separated. The quoted consent line is necessary for exact behavioral semantics rather than padding.

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 consequential submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers validation, human-approval steps, the confirmation token handoff, email-link requirement, and the exact consent meaning. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Schema already covers answers and consent, and the description adds crucial meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent has an exact quoted agreement, and confirmation is the token from step 1. This goes well beyond the baseline schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('submits an enquiry to Latent Defects Insurance Cost') and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also separates it from sibling tools by describing the two-step confirmation flow, so an agent can identify when this tool is relevant.

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?

Explicit step-by-step guidance: step 1 call with answers and consent=true to get a summary/token, show the summary and consent line to the person, then step 2 call only after agreement with the same answers and confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields for keying answers, which routes the agent to the correct sibling for field keys.

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
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is mild overlap because submit_enquiry's description restates process details, but an agent should be able to select the right tool for the task.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' root, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. It is readable and predictable enough, though not a consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for the narrow purpose of submitting a Latent Defects Insurance Cost enquiry. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow: understanding, schema, and submission, so no tool feels redundant or missing.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle for this server: it explains the process, exposes all form fields with validation details, and handles the two-step consent and confirmation flow. There are no obvious dead ends for an agent guiding a user through submission.

Resources