Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.towingcapacitychecker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Towing Capacity 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: "Send my contact details to up to three local towbar fitters or towing specialists, chosen by Towing Capacity Checker, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three local towbar fitters or towing specialists, chosen by Towing Capacity Checker, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to a local towbar fitter or towing specialist, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three local towbar fitters or towing specialists, chosen by Towing Capacity Checker, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it does: it discloses the two-step validation flow, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token, and the downstream consequence (an email link the person must click before any provider sees the data). It also spells out the exact consent meaning, which is critical for a mutation that shares personal data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the crucial negation, then cleanly partitioned into Step 1 / Step 2. Minor redundancy: the full consent string is reproduced verbatim even though it already appears identically in the schema description for 'consent', so that sentence earns less than its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills that gap by naming what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens post-submission. For a two-step, data-sharing mutation tool this covers everything an agent needs to drive the interaction 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% (baseline 3), but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' is keyed by field keys from the enquiry_fields sibling, and 'confirmation' is the token returned from step 1 — a sequencing relationship the schema's flat 'confirmation token from step 1' note only partially conveys. Consent semantics are fully explained.

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 verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Towing Capacity Checker') and immediately scopes it by negation ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from the checker_* siblings and from any purchase flow without needing the schema.

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?

Gives explicit step-by-step when-to-use: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition between the two calls is stated, not inferred.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources