Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.legionellaassessmentcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Legionella Assessment 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 local legionella assessors, who'll quote 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 local legionella assessors, who'll quote 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 burden, and it does so richly. It discloses the two-step submit behavior, validation, return of summary/consent line/confirmation token, the email link requirement, and the condition that providers see the enquiry only after the person clicks the link.

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 critical 'NOT a purchase' distinction and uses clear Step 1 / Step 2 markers. Every sentence carries necessary operational information, including the exact consent wording, with no filler.

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 having no output schema, the description fully covers the two-step flow, the intermediate return values, the final submission outcome, and the email-link prerequisite. It is complete enough for an agent to execute the tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact quoted phrase, and confirmation is the token from step 1 used only in the second call. It also clarifies which parameters apply to which step.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Legionella Assessment Cost'. The title and description immediately distinguish it from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and the two-step workflow is clearly named. It also differentiates from the sibling tools by centering on submission rather than describing enquiry fields.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step usage guidance: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also clarifies when not to use it ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references the prerequisite of using enquiry_fields for answer 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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: describing the enquiry process, providing the field schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case and share the 'enquiry' theme, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' place the noun first, while 'submit_enquiry' uses a verb-noun structure. This is not chaotic, but it is not consistently verb_noun.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is the right size for this narrowly scoped enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary step: understand the process, get the schema, and submit with confirmation.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle for this domain: explaining what happens, retrieving required fields, and submitting with a two-step consent confirmation. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from completing the intended task.

Resources