Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.marinesurveycost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Marine Survey 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 marine surveyors, who'll contact me directly with their fee."

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 marine surveyors, who'll contact me directly with their fee.
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 succeeds admirably. It discloses validation, the returned summary and consent line, the email notification, the requirement that the person click the emailed link before providers see the enquiry, and exact consent wording.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but appropriately so for a two-step stateful operation. It front-loads the key disclaimer and then structures step 1 and step 2 clearly. Slightly long, but every clause contributes necessary behavioral context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and side effects. It does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line, and confirmation token; step 2 triggers the email and eventual provider visibility. It also references enquiry_fields for constructing answers, making the tool self-contained.

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, but the description adds meaningful guidance by tying answers to field keys from enquiry_fields and clarifying the confirmation token's role. The consent text in the schema is enriched by explaining it represents the person's agreement before submission.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Marine Survey Cost.' It immediately disambiguates what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which clearly separates it from any transaction-like sibling and conveys the core intent.

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 spells out a two-step protocol with explicit conditions: step 1 requires answers and consent=true, then step 2 is gated on the person agreeing and on supplying the confirmation token. This tells an agent exactly when to call and what each invocation accomplishes.

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: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit executes the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `enquiry_` prefix followed by a clear noun/verb (describe, fields, submit). This creates a predictable and intuitive pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for the narrow purpose of submitting an enquiry. Each tool is necessary and no redundant or extraneous tools exist.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the enquiry workflow: understanding the process, inspecting required fields, and submitting with consent confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain.

Resources