Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.motortradeinsurancecompare

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Motor Trade Insurance Compare — 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 insurance brokers who write motor trade, 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 insurance brokers who write motor trade, 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

A4.7/5.0
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 does so well. It discloses the two-step submission flow, the requirement to show the summary and consent line, and the side effect that a person receives an email link which must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry.

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 long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, non-purchase warning, step 1 behavior, step 2 behavior, and the exact consent wording. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and follows a clear sequential structure.

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?

This is a complex two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description tells the agent exactly what inputs to send, what to show the user, what to carry forward, what side effects occur, and what the consent condition is. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful process-level semantics by explaining that confirmation is only used in the second call and that answers and consent must remain the same between steps, which is not fully captured by the schema's simple parameter descriptions.

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 action and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Motor Trade Insurance Compare'. It also explicitly distinguishes this from other actions with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' and the title emphasizes 'two steps', which sets it apart clearly from the sibling comparison/enquiry-description tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives detailed procedural guidance: Step 1 for validation and confirmation token, Step 2 only 'if the person agrees'. It also tells the agent when not to treat this as a purchase or quote, although it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: comparison data is split by criteria, options, and full table, while enquiry tools cover documentation, field schema, and submission. Even the overlapping 'compare_table' is distinguished as the full cross-product view.

Naming Consistency4/5

The compare_* tools and submit_enquiry use a clear verb-first pattern, but enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a noun-first pattern. This is a minor deviation that does not seriously hinder predictability.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped count for this domain. The comparison side needs three views and the enquiry side needs three steps, with no redundant or missing tools.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the stated purpose: comparing UK motor trade insurance options by criteria and submitting an enquiry with consent. The two-step submission flow with confirmation token is documented and supported end-to-end.

Resources