Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.revalidationtracker

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Revalidation Tracker — 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 CPD or revalidation support provider, 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 CPD or revalidation support provider, 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and succeeds. It reveals the two-step consent workflow, the exact consent wording, the email link requirement, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link.

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 efficiently organized into numbered steps and opens with the most critical distinction: not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote. The repeated consent details are not redundant because they define a required user-facing boundary.

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-sensitive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: inputs, validation result, confirmation token, approval condition, email behavior, and provider visibility. There is no critical missing context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context beyond the schema: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields, consent must match a specific agreed statement, and confirmation is the token from Step 1 reused only after approval.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'submits an enquiry to Revalidation Tracker' and immediately clarifies it is not a purchase or quote. It also frames the two-step nature of the operation, making it distinct 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?

It provides explicit step-by-step usage: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, using the confirmation token. It also excludes misuse by stating this is NOT a purchase and NOT a guaranteed quote.

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

The six tools split cleanly into a decision-guide workflow (start/answer/tree) and an enquiry submission workflow (describe/fields/submit). Each tool has a distinct role: start initializes, answer advances stepwise, tree provides full context, and the enquiry tools cover explanation, schema, and submission. No two tools could plausibly be used for the same action.

Naming Consistency4/5

The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes create clear, predictable grouping, and every name is snake_case. The main deviation is that some names are action-oriented (start, answer, describe, submit) while tree and fields are data-oriented nouns, so the grammatical pattern is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for the two distinct workflows the server exposes. There is no redundancy or padding; each tool maps to one clear capability.

Completeness5/5

For the checker, start, answer, and tree cover entry, stepwise navigation, and full reasoning respectively. For the enquiry, describe, fields, and the two-step submit flow provide the explanation, schema, validation, confirmation, and final submission needed for a complete user journey.

Resources