Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.smokecontrolchecker

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Smoke Control Checker — 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 HETAS-registered stove installer, 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 HETAS-registered stove installer, 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does so impressively: it discloses the two-step side effect, the consent requirement with exact wording, that the person receives an email, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked. It also warns the action 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 long but every sentence earns its place: front-loaded purpose, explicit Step 1/Step 2 structure, and the consent string are all essential for correct invocation. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 no-output-schema tool, it explains the step 1 return (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the final outcome (email with click link). It doesn't describe validation failure behavior or the exact step 2 return payload, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and manage the user interaction.

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 real value by defining 'answers' as keyed by enquiry_fields, pinning the exact consent text, and explaining the 'confirmation' token's provenance from step 1. It stops short of describing individual answer fields, but those are delegated to enquiry_fields.

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?

States a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Smoke Control Checker') and immediately distinguishes itself from purchases/quotes via the title and description. The two-step confirmation flow is explicit, making the tool's role unambiguous relative to sibling checker/enquiry info 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?

Provides clear procedural guidance: call once with answers+consent to validate, then call again with the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'do not use when...', but the 'NOT a purchase/quote' caveat and stepwise conditions give strong usage 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The tool set separates cleanly into a decision-guide workflow (checker_start, checker_answer) and an enquiry workflow (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry). Each tool has a single clear job, and the descriptions resolve any possible confusion between explaining the enquiry and providing its field schema.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and use domain prefixes such as checker_ and enquiry_, which keeps them readable. The action style is inconsistent, though: checker_start and enquiry_describe put the verb last, submit_enquiry puts it first, and enquiry_fields is a noun phrase rather than an action.

Tool Count5/5

The set is well-scoped for its stated purpose: two tools cover the checker decision tree and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and the count is comfortably within the ideal range.

Completeness5/5

The checker workflow is covered end to end from the first question through to a final verdict, and the enquiry workflow is covered from explanation and field discovery through the two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious missing operations that would leave an agent in a dead end.

Resources