Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.treesurveycost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Tree 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 tree surveyors, 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 local tree surveyors, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: validation and return of a summary and token in step 1, actual submission only in step 2, and an email link the person must click before providers see the enquiry. It also states the exact consent wording, leaving no ambiguity about side effects.

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 detailed but every sentence carries essential workflow information. It front-loads the purpose and non-purpose, then structures step 1 and step 2 clearly, and ends with the consent text. No filler or redundant content.

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 having no output schema, the description explains what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the email-verification consequence. It also points to enquiry_fields for valid answer keys, making the tool callable end-to-end without missing context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already documents all parameters, the description adds crucial semantic context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, the confirmation parameter is the token returned in step 1, and consent=true must reflect the person's agreement to the exact consent line. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Tree Survey Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also lays out the two-step submission flow, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 gives explicit step-by-step guidance: call once with answers and consent=true to validate and receive a token, then call again only after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the token. It also references enquiry_fields for the field keys, indicating where to obtain valid answers.

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
Disambiguation4/5

The three tools are largely distinct: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is minor potential confusion between describe and fields since both are preliminary 'read' steps, but the descriptions clarify their different purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'enquiry_<verb>' pattern: describe, fields, and submit. The naming clearly groups them under a single domain and makes the action of each tool immediately recognizable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a simple enquiry submission workflow. Each tool covers a distinct stage—orientation, schema discovery, and submission—without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving field definitions, and submitting with confirmation. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit status-check or cancellation tool, but for this narrow domain the surface is functionally complete.

Resources