Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.treesurveycost
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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: "Send my contact details to up to three relevant local tree surveyors, chosen by Tree Survey Cost, 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 relevant local tree surveyors, chosen by Tree Survey Cost, 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 relevant local tree surveyors, who'll quote me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three relevant local tree surveyors, chosen by Tree Survey Cost, 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation behavior, the step-1 return payload (summary, consent line, token), the email-link confirmation gate before any provider sees the data, fan-out to up to three providers, and the person's ability to stop further disclosures. Nothing about side effects or consent semantics is left implicit.

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 disambiguation before the mechanics, and the two-step structure is easy to follow. It is on the long side and reproduces the full consent sentence a second time, which the schema already carries, but every other clause earns its place.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with a stateful two-call flow, the description supplies the missing pieces: what step 1 returns, what the token is for, and the downstream email-confirmation gate. An agent has everything needed to drive the flow without guessing.

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 sequencing meaning the schema cannot express — that consent=true is a per-step gate and that confirmation is the token produced by step 1 and only passed on the second call. The consent wording it repeats is already in the schema, so it slightly overshoots redundancy rather than fully earning a 5.

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) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which is critical for an agent that might otherwise treat it as a transaction. It also names the source of the answers (field key from enquiry_fields), tying it to a sibling tool.

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?

It spells out an explicit two-call protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The conditional gate ('only if the person agrees') and the requirement to show the summary and consent line are precisely the when-to-call guidance an agent needs.

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