Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.planthirerates

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Plant Hire Rates — 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 local plant hire companies, 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 local plant hire companies, 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

A5/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains validation, the returned summary and consent line, the confirmation token, the email link requirement before providers see the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent.

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 conveying a necessary part of a two-step protocol. The explicit 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' structure makes the workflow easy to follow, and the important exclusions are stated at the start.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the expected outputs of step 1, the condition for step 2, and the post-submission behavior including the email link requirement. The agent has enough information to execute the tool correctly without guessing.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent has exact quoted wording, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1 after approval. This is far beyond a restatement of the schema.

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?

States a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Plant Hire Rates') and clearly distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote, which are common confusions for an enquiry tool. The two-step nature is also front-loaded in the title and reinforced in the description, making the tool's 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit step-by-step usage protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token, then step 2 only if the person agrees, reusing the same answers and token. It also tells the agent what not to expect ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references enquiry_fields as the source of valid answer keys.

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 job: describe gives the high-level explanation, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no real overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a task.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is readable but mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a resource-first pattern, while submit_enquiry uses a verb-first pattern. A uniform verb_noun structure like describe_enquiry, list_enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry would improve consistency.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, well-defined purpose: understand, inspect fields, and submit. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary surface area.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full enquiry workflow: context and consent are provided by describe, input requirements come from fields, and submit handles both validation/confirmation and final submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.

Resources