Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.shopsigncost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Shop Sign Cost — 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 local sign makers and installers, 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 local sign makers and installers, 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the stateful two-step nature, validation, returned summary/consent line/token, the need to show the person before the second call, the email with a link, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. This is thorough and non-misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core exclusion and uses numbered steps, making the workflow clear. However, it is dense and repeats the consent quote already present in the schema, making it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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, the description covers the main workflow extremely well, including return values and the email-link prerequisite. It does not explain error behavior, such as what happens if validation fails or the confirmation token is missing, leaving a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial workflow semantics beyond the schema. It explains that answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent is tied to a specific consent text, and that the confirmation property is the token returned from step 1 and must be supplied on the second call.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Shop Sign Cost.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote and clearly explains the two-step submission workflow. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from the sibling 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 when-not usage ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and a detailed step-by-step calling procedure, including when to call again with the confirmation token. It references enquiry_fields for correct answer keying, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when to use them instead.

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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one explains the process, one returns the field schema, and one performs the submission. The two-step submit behavior is documented within submit_enquiry itself, so an agent should not confuse it with the informational tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools share the 'enquiry' root and use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: two are noun-first (`enquiry_describe`, `enquiry_fields`) while the action is verb-first (`submit_enquiry`). This is readable but lacks a single predictable verb_noun convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is appropriate for the narrow enquiry lifecycle: a process explainer, a schema provider, and a submission action. Each tool justifies its existence and there is no bloat.

Completeness5/5

The surface fully covers the intended workflow: an agent can understand the process, fetch all required fields and options, and submit with the required consent and confirmation token. No additional operations are needed for the stated Shop Sign Cost enquiry purpose.

Resources