Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.privatesurgerycosts

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Private Surgery Costs — 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 private hospitals and clinics, who'll contact me directly about costs."

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 private hospitals and clinics, who'll contact me directly about costs.
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, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses the validation step, the confirmation token flow, the email with a click-link requirement, and the exact consent wording. No behavioral surprises are left for the agent to discover.

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 by explaining a required step, condition, or side effect. The structure is logical: purpose, step 1, step 2, and the consent meaning. It is long only because the workflow genuinely requires 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the two-step protocol, the intermediate token, the consent condition, the email link requirement, and what happens before providers see the enquiry. The agent has enough context to handle a complex human-interaction flow.

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 the schema already describes all three parameters, the description adds crucial context: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must match the quoted agreement, and confirmation is the token produced in step 1. This materially improves the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a specific action — submitting an enquiry to Private Surgery Costs — and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also conveys the two-step nature, which separates it from typical one-shot submission tools.

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 once to validate and get a token, then call again with consent and token only after the person agrees. It does not explicitly compare with the sibling tools, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for correct invocation.

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 role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and clearly related to enquiries, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an 'enquiry_' prefix while submit_enquiry uses an '_enquiry' suffix. The names are readable and understandable, but the verb/noun order is not consistent across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for the narrow purpose of submitting an enquiry: one to orient the agent, one to define the fields, and one to submit with confirmation handling. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full enquiry workflow: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, validating and confirming submission, and handling consent. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources