Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.payrolldates

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Payroll Dates — 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 payroll bureau or accountant, 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 payroll bureau or accountant, 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the first call only validates and returns a summary, the second call actually submits, consent is required, and the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an email link. This is unusually transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the critical 'not a purchase' caveat and clearly separates step 1 and step 2. It is longer than average, but the two-step protocol and consent details justify the length. The exact consent phrase is repeated from the schema, which is slightly redundant but harmless.

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 human-submission flow with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what to do in each step, what the first return contains, when to make the second call, what consent means, and what happens after submission.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent must reflect agreement to the exact privacy line, and confirmation is the token from step 1 used only after approval. This goes beyond the schema's static 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 clearly states the tool submits an enquiry to human providers, explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and explains it is a two-step process. This gives an agent a precise understanding of the operation and its boundaries.

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 provides a clear step-by-step usage protocol: first call with answers and consent, then a second call with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for field keys, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool beyond saying it is not a purchase.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one runs the calculator, one describes the calculator, one explains the enquiry flow, one provides enquiry fields, and one submits the enquiry. Even the two 'describe' tools are cleanly separated by subject matter and explicit descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names mix verb-only ('calculate'), noun-first with verb suffix ('calculator_describe', 'enquiry_describe'), and verb-noun ('submit_enquiry'), with 'enquiry_fields' following a noun-noun pattern. The style is readable and consistently lowercase/underscore, but the naming conventions are not uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a server that provides a single deadline calculator plus a guided enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and there is no bloat or sense of missing infrastructure.

Completeness5/5

The calculator has both a run tool and a describe tool to expose assumptions, and the enquiry flow has describe, fields, and a two-step submit tool with confirmation handling. The surface covers the full lifecycle for the server's apparent purpose.

Resources