Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.noticeperiodcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Notice Period Calculator — 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 relevant employment law adviser, 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 relevant employment law adviser, 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 provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that a submission triggers an email with a clickable link, that providers only see the enquiry after that click, that step 1 is validation-only, and that consent has a precise meaning. These are important behavioral details beyond the bare schema.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place, with the critical 'not a purchase/quote' distinction front-loaded and the two-step workflow clearly numbered. The included consent quote is necessary given its legal/behavioral significance and the schema's reference to it.

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 two-step submission tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what happens at each step, what the agent should show the user, what the confirmation token is for, what triggers the email, and the precondition for provider visibility. No critical operational detail 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: answers keys come from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only when the exact consent line has been agreed to, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This operational enrichment goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 the tool submits an enquiry to human providers, explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and describes the two-step nature in the title and body. This differentiates it from siblings like calculate and enquiry_describe without ambiguity.

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 explicit step-by-step usage instructions: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement naming alternative tools, but the workflow guidance is otherwise 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: calculate performs the notice calculation, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry workflow, enquiry_fields provides the field schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. Even though two enquiry description tools exist, their roles are clearly separated by content.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names mix styles: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-led actions, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-led descriptors. The naming is still readable, but it does not follow a single consistent convention.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for this server: two for the calculator workflow and three for the enquiry workflow. Each tool serves a necessary and distinct function without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The calculator workflow is covered by running and describing the calculation, and the enquiry workflow covers explanation, field discovery, and two-step submission with consent and confirmation. Minor gaps like enquiry status or cancellation tools are not essential for the stated purpose.

Resources