Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.rendercostcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Render Cost 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 local rendering specialist, 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 local rendering specialist, 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 burden, and it excels. It discloses the two-step validation, the need for consent, the confirmation token, the conditional second call, the post-submission email, and the requirement that the person click a link before a provider sees anything. It also clarifies that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the non-purchase nature, then lays out the two steps in a logical, scannable way without redundancy. The consent text is quoted exactly, which is necessary and not wasted words.

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 consent-driven submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains inputs, the intermediate return value, the email side-effect, and the condition for provider visibility. An agent has enough context to execute the correct sequence and know what to present to the user.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds real meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact quoted agreement text, and confirmation is the token obtained in step 1. This goes well beyond the schema's bare property names and 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 a specific verb plus resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Render Cost Calculator.' It also distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and the title adds that it is a two-step process, making its purpose unmistakable relative to its siblings.

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 concrete step-by-step usage guidance: step 1 with consent and answers, step 2 with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It references enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, which implies the intended workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the detailed protocol gives clear context.

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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: running the calculator, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. The descriptions reinforce these boundaries, so an agent should not confuse one tool with another.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and use a shared domain vocabulary, but the patterns are mixed: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun-verb, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. This is inconsistent but still predictable enough to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a small calculator/enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow—calculation, description, field lookup, and submission—without unnecessary duplication or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the apparent domain: it lets agents understand the calculator, run it, understand the enquiry process, retrieve the required fields, and submit an enquiry with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps.

Resources