Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.noiseassessmentcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Noise Assessment 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 acoustic consultants, 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 acoustic consultants, 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

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 it delivers: it discloses validation, the summary and consent line returned in step 1, the confirmation token requirement, the email with a click link, and the exact consent wording. It also states that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks the link, which is important 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 dense but every segment earns its place: the non-purchase clarification, the consent text, the two-step sequence, and the email-link condition. It is front-loaded with the tool's essential purpose before moving into procedural details.

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?

The description fully covers the two-step workflow, what each call returns, when the second call is appropriate, and the post-submission email step. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and side effects an agent needs to know.

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 substantial meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only when the person agrees to the quoted consent text, and confirmation is the step-1 token. This clarifies the relationship and sequencing of the parameters beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states that this tool submits an enquiry to human providers, and explicitly distinguishes the action from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also positions the tool relative to the two-step submission flow, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit two-step usage procedure: call first with answers and consent to get a summary and token, then call again with the token only after the person agrees. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields as alternatives, but the operational guidance for this tool is exceptionally clear.

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 distinct role: one describes the process, one provides the field schema, and one handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them, so an agent can confidently select the right tool for the current step.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use lowercase snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is slightly inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first. This is a minor deviation rather than a serious problem.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a focused enquiry-submission workflow. Each tool covers a necessary part of the interaction: understanding the process, inspecting the schema, and submitting with confirmation.

Completeness5/5

For the stated purpose of submitting a Noise Assessment Cost enquiry, the tool surface is complete: it explains the process, exposes the required fields, and handles the two-step consent/confirmation flow. No essential operation appears to be missing.

Resources