Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.latepaymentinterest

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Late Payment Interest — 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 a relevant debt recovery specialist or solicitor, 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 a relevant debt recovery specialist or solicitor, 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 the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the consent requirement, the email link click-before-visible behavior, and the fact that no provider sees the enquiry until the person acts.

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: the non-purchase warning is front-loaded, and the step-by-step procedure is necessary given the tool's complexity. No redundant filler is present.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description explains exactly what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what triggers final submission and email notification. The tool's complexity is fully addressed, including the human consent and email-click prerequisites.

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 covers parameter descriptions at 100%, the description adds crucial workflow semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, the confirmation token comes from step 1, and consent must remain true in both calls. This is meaningfully more than the schema alone provides.

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 Late Payment Interest') and explicitly contrasts itself with 'a purchase' and 'a guaranteed quote', making the tool's precise role unmistakable. The two-step nature is also clearly signaled.

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 concrete procedural guidance: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary, and call again only after agreement with the confirmation token. It also conveys when not to use the tool ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 has a distinct role: calculate executes the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-led, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-led. The lack of a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern makes the set feel uneven.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for this small site: two support the calculator workflow and three support the enquiry workflow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none are redundant.

Completeness5/5

The calculator has run and documentation coverage, and the enquiry has explanation, field schema, and a validated two-step submission process. The core user journeys are fully supported with no obvious dead ends.

Resources