site

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Martyn's Law 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: "Send my contact details to up to three event and venue safety consultants, chosen by Martyn's Law Cost, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "answers": "<answers>",
      "consent": "<consent>"
    },
    "name": "submit_enquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`answers`	Yes	the person's answers, keyed by field key
`consent`	Yes	true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three event and venue safety consultants, chosen by Martyn's Law Cost, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them.
`confirmation`	No	the confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / consent / description

Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to relevant security and compliance specialists, who'll quote me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three event and venue safety consultants, chosen by Martyn's Law Cost, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses that the tool validates rather than submits on the first call, that submission requires a token, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data, and exactly what consent authorises. It stops short of stating retry/idempotency behaviour or what happens if the token expires, but the safety-relevant behaviour is well covered.

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?

Front-loaded verdict ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') then a clean Step 1 / Step 2 structure. It is on the long side, and the full verbatim consent sentence is duplicated in the schema's consent description, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 describe returns, and it does: Step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token; Step 2 results in an email link the person must click. Nothing needed to invoke either step correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema cannot: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true at both steps, and confirmation is the token returned by Step 1 and only passed after approval. That gives the agent the workflow meaning of each parameter.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Martyn's Law Cost) and immediately bounds the scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling helpers enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields by naming the two-step flow those tools feed into.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use sequence: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the token. The precondition on Step 2 is stated rather than inferred, and the human-confirmation gate is spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All site tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?