Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.termdatesapi

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Term Dates API — 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 education data suppliers and developers, 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 education data suppliers and developers, 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fully delivers: it discloses validation, two-step submission, confirmation token handoff, email link requirement before provider visibility, and the exact consent wording. There is no hidden mutation behavior.

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 for a two-step workflow: core definition first, then step-by-step instructions, then the exact consent text. Nothing is filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after submission (email with link). For a complex two-step tool with no annotations, this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact consent text, and confirmation is the token from step 1 required in step 2. This clarifies how the parameters relate to the workflow.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Term Dates API') and immediately distinguishes the tool from purchase or quote tools. It also names the two-step nature and references enquiry_fields, making it clearly distinct from sibling comparison/enquiry tools.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use instructions: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, reusing the same answers plus confirmation token. It also states when not to use it ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and points to enquiry_fields for valid answer keys.

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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The compare_* tools are clearly separated into criteria, options, and the full matrix, and the enquiry_* tools split process explanation, schema, and submission. There is minor overlap potential between compare_criteria and compare_table since the table also includes criteria, but descriptions make the intended use distinguishable.

Naming Consistency3/5

compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first and submit_enquiry uses verb_noun again. The mixed ordering is still readable, but the naming is not fully systematic.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering both a comparison view and an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool supports a distinct step without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The comparison side covers criteria, options, and the full result table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, field discovery, and two-step submission. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to check an enquiry's status or resend the confirmation email, but they are not essential to the stated workflow.

Resources