Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.tachocalibration

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Tacho Calibration — 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 approved tachograph centres, 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 relevant approved tachograph centres, 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly. It reveals validation behavior, return contents, the required consent text, the email link requirement, and the post-click provider visibility rule, all without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 average but every sentence earns its place: purpose clarification, step sequencing, return values, consent wording, and post-submission behavior. The critical 'NOT a purchase' boundary is front-loaded, and the quoted consent text avoids paraphrase drift.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: required inputs, validation and confirmation flow, agreement condition, email side effect, and provider visibility timing. Nothing essential to calling this tool safely is missing.

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 input schema already covers all parameters at 100%, including the consent meaning and keyed answers, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics by explaining that answers are keyed from enquiry_fields, that confirmation is the step-1 token, and that consent must persist across both calls.

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 Tacho Calibration' and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes the tool's core purpose from related but different actions.

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 two-step workflow is fully explicit: step 1 is validation and consent display, step 2 is submission only 'if the person agrees', using the same answers plus the confirmation token. The description also states the consequence of step 2 (email link and provider visibility), leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. Each tool has a distinct purpose with no functional overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

Two tools use an enquiry_ prefix with a descriptor (describe, fields), while submit_enquiry reverses the order into verb_noun. The names are still readable and all reference 'enquiry', but the convention is mixed.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools cover exactly what is needed for a single enquiry workflow: overview, schema, and submission. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The workflow is fully covered: an agent can describe the process, retrieve the required fields, and submit with consent and token confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources