Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.motsoftware

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to MOT 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 garage software supplier, 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 garage software supplier, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals validation, return of a summary and consent line, the confirmation token flow, the email requirement, and that providers see the enquiry only after the person clicks the link. It also quotes the exact consent text, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important scoping information ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded. The two-step procedure is presented in a clear, numbered, actionable structure with no filler.

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 tool with a two-step flow, a nested answers parameter, and no output schema, the description provides complete operational context: what step 1 returns, what triggers step 2, how consent is defined, and what the user experiences after submission. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after reading the quoted line, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This clarifies how the three parameters interrelate across the two steps.

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 ('submits an enquiry'), the target (MOT Software human providers), and immediately distinguishes this from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also clarifies the two-step nature of the operation, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit step-by-step usage: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary, then call again only if the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It also states what the tool is NOT for ('not a purchase'), which helps an agent avoid misusing it.

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

The compare_* tools are clearly distinct: criteria, options, and the full table each target a different aspect of the comparison data. The enquiry_* tools also separate explanation, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case and are grouped into compare_ and enquiry_ prefixes, which is readable and predictable. The main deviation is enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields placing the noun first, while submit_enquiry and compare_* follow verb_first, but this is minor and does not cause confusion.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped set for this server: three tools cover the comparison table surface and three cover the enquiry flow. Every tool earns its place with no redundant or filler tools.

Completeness5/5

The comparison domain is fully covered: users can list criteria, list options, and view the full criteria-by-option table. The enquiry flow is also complete with an explainer, field schema, and a two-step submit process including consent and confirmation.

Resources