Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.patentattorneycost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Patent Attorney 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 patent attorneys, 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 relevant patent attorneys, 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

A4.8/5.0
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 disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool is two-step, non-purchase, sends an email with a clickable link, and prevents providers from seeing the enquiry until the person clicks. It even states the exact consent wording.

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 earns its place by covering essential behavioral and procedural information. The Step 1/Step 2 structure makes it easy to follow, and the consent text is included verbatim to prevent misinterpretation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description thoroughly explains the two-step flow, the return of summary and token in step 1, the email-link behavior, and the consent requirement. A minor gap is that the return value or success behavior of the second call is not explicitly described, but overall this is highly complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers all three parameters, and the description adds meaningful context: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, confirmation is the token from step 1, and consent requires explicit agreement to the quoted text. This goes beyond the baseline schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Patent Attorney Cost.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from a purchase or a guaranteed quote, which removes ambiguity about the tool's true purpose and separates it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 provides a clear, step-by-step usage protocol: call once with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also states when not to use the tool (not for purchases) and the condition that must be met before submission.

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 clearly distinct purpose: one explains the process, one returns the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no real overlap in what an agent would call them for.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are readable and consistently snake_case, but they do not follow a single pattern: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This is mixed but not chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a narrow single-purpose enquiry flow. Each tool has a distinct role and none feel redundant or missing.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full lifecycle of the enquiry: understanding the flow, retrieving valid input fields, and submitting with confirmation. The two-step confirmation handling is built into submit_enquiry, so there are no dead ends.

Resources