Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.machineryrepairquotes

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Machinery Repair Quotes — 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 machinery repair specialists, 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 machinery repair specialists, 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 excels: it exposes the two-step nature, that validation happens before submission, that nothing is sent without the email-link click, and that an email is triggered. It also states the exact consent condition and wording, which is material behavioral context.

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 longer than average but fully warranted by the two-step workflow; it is front-loaded with the critical 'not a purchase/quote' warning, uses numbered stages, and every clause adds operational detail. No filler or tautology.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites (field keys), exact request patterns for both steps, the intermediate return value, the final outcome, and consent requirements. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is already 100%, and the description adds real value on top: it explains that answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys, that consent is only valid when the person agreed to the quoted text, and that confirmation is the token returned from Step 1 after approval. This clarifies the optional parameter's role and the workflow dependencies.

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 Machinery Repair Quotes'), explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or a guaranteed quote, and describes the two-step submission process. The title reinforces the action, so an agent can tell it apart from enquiry_describe and 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 invocation conditions: Step 1 validation with consent=true, then Step 2 only after the person approves, using the confirmation token. It also directs the agent to enquiry_fields for the answer keys and states the tool is not a purchase, so there is no ambiguity about when it applies.

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 overall process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or realistic confusion between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain, making them predictable. However, enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first, so the pattern is not perfectly consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is exactly right for this focused enquiry-submission domain. Each tool earns its place: orientation, field metadata, and submission.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the intended workflow from reading about the process to fetching fields to submitting with confirmation. No obvious lifecycle gaps exist for a simple enquiry form.

Resources