Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.subsidencesurveycost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Subsidence Survey 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 behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the consent requirement with exact wording, the email notification, and the condition that a provider only sees the enquiry after the person clicks the email 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 longer than usual but every sentence earns its place given the two-step protocol. It front-loads the essential purpose and exclusions, then structures the workflow clearly into step 1 and step 2 without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and a non-obvious two-step flow, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what step 1 returns, what step 2 does, what consent means, and what the human will experience, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly without needing additional 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational semantics beyond the schema by explaining that answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, that consent must reflect the exact quoted agreement, and that confirmation is the token returned from step 1.

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 Subsidence Survey Cost') and adds clear delimitation by saying it is 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also explains the two-step nature up front, making the tool's purpose distinct from its siblings.

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 step-by-step usage conditions: call once with answers and consent, then call again only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It references enquiry_fields for keying answers and explicitly excludes purchase/quote use cases, though it does not name sibling tools as alternatives for those cases.

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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct responsibility: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are readable and use the 'enquiry' domain consistently, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are object-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This is understandable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: orientation, field discovery, and submission. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary surface area.

Completeness5/5

The enquiry lifecycle is fully covered: the agent can learn the process, fetch all required fields, validate and submit with consent, and handle the two-step confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist for the stated domain.

Resources