Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.structuralreportcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Structural Report 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 relevant local structural engineers, 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 relevant local structural engineers, 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

A4.7/5.0
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 of behavioral transparency. It discloses the two-step nature, validation, consent requirements, confirmation token flow, email delivery, and the click-before-provider-sees-it condition. This is exceptionally transparent for an agent.

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 serves a purpose: setting expectations, explaining the two steps, defining the consent wording, and noting the email requirement. The structure front-loads the critical 'not a purchase' clarification and follows with a logical step-by-step flow.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what the agent receives from Step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what to show the person, and the exact condition for Step 2. It is complete enough for correct invocation of a consent-gated, multi-step tool.

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, but the description adds operational meaning by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, linking the confirmation token to Step 1, and emphasizing that consent must be true in both calls. This goes beyond the schema's standalone field 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 opens with 'Submits an enquiry to Structural Report Cost' and immediately distinguishes itself with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This clearly identifies the specific action and resource, and the two-step submission behavior separates it from sibling tools 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit procedural guidance: Step 1 validates and returns a summary/token, Step 2 submits only after the person agrees. It also implies dependency on enquiry_fields for answer keys. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to follow correctly.

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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role in the enquiry flow: one describes the process, one returns the schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Two tools use the enquiry_ prefix while the third uses submit_enquiry, so the word order is not uniform. The names are still readable and understandable individually, but they do not follow a single verb_noun convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a simple enquiry submission server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the flow without unnecessary surface area.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: reading the process, obtaining the field schema, and submitting with a two-step consent confirmation. No obvious missing operation is needed for this narrow domain.

Resources