Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.sarbuilder

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to SAR Builder — 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 data protection solicitors, 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 data protection solicitors, 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 the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step confirmation flow, the non-purchase nature, the exact consent wording, the email that is sent, and the condition that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 well-structured: it opens with the key clarification, then uses numbered steps to describe the flow. Every sentence adds necessary operational information, and the consent quote is included inline rather than referenced vaguely. Nothing is redundant.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior, inputs, outputs, and sequencing. With no output schema, it still explains what the user receives (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after submission (email, link click, provider visibility). It is complete for a multi-step human-submission workflow.

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 describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage context: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and confirmation only comes from step 1 and is used after the person approves. This clarifies the lifecycle and relationships between parameters beyond the schema definitions.

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 SAR Builder') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the enquiry_* and checker_* siblings by focusing on the submission action.

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?

The description gives an explicit two-step procedure: call first with answers and consent=true to get a summary/token, then call again only if the person agrees, with the same answers and token. It also specifies the consent requirement and the required follow-up email click, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start/answer/tree cover the decision guide's entry, traversal, and full model, while enquiry_describe/fields/submit_enquiry cover documentation, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a domain-prefixed pattern (checker_*, enquiry_*), which makes grouping obvious. submit_enquiry breaks the pattern by leading with the verb instead of the domain, but the naming remains understandable and mostly consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a compact, well-scoped set for a two-part workflow: the decision guide and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

The decision guide is fully covered with start, step-wise answer, and full tree access, and the enquiry flow documents the process, fields, and two-step submission. A status-check or retrieval tool for submitted enquiries would be a minor gap, but the core workflow has no dead ends.

Resources