Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.lettingagentsoftware

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Letting Agent Software — 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 lettings software specialist, 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 lettings software specialist, 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that step 1 only validates, step 2 actually submits, the person receives an email with a click link, and providers do not see the enquiry until that link is clicked. It also defines consent explicitly.

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 title front-loads the two-step and not-a-purchase framing. The description is dense but every sentence carries procedural information needed to invoke the tool safely. The repeated consent quote is justified because it defines a critical behavioral 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what step 1 returns, what the agent should show the person, what step 2 requires, and what happens after submission. An agent has sufficient information to execute both steps 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. The description adds process-level meaning by tying answers to enquiry_fields keys, consent=true to explicit agreement, and the confirmation token to the step-1 result. Some wording duplicates the schema, but the two-call sequencing provides additional semantic clarity.

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: it submits an enquiry to Letting Agent Software, and explicitly contrasts itself with a purchase and a guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is made clear up front, which separates it from sibling tools like enquiry_fields and compare_options.

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?

The description provides explicit step-by-step call guidance: first validate with answers and consent=true, then call again only if the person agrees, passing the confirmation token. It also says what the tool is not for, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The six tools split cleanly into comparison data (criteria, options, table) and enquiry workflow (describe, fields, submit). Each tool targets a distinct resource or stage, so an agent should not confuse them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case and grouped by domain: compare_* for comparison and enquiry_* / submit_enquiry for the enquiry flow. However, enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use noun_first naming while submit_enquiry uses verb_first, so there is a minor structural inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped: three for viewing the comparison and three for handling the enquiry lifecycle. There is no redundancy and every tool serves a necessary purpose.

Completeness5/5

The comparison side exposes criteria, options, and the full values table, while the enquiry side covers explaining the action, describing fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. This fully supports the server's stated site purpose with no obvious dead ends.

Resources