Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.venuecapacitycheck

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Venue Capacity Check — 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 a relevant fire safety or licensing consultant, 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 a relevant fire safety or licensing consultant, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that this is not a purchase or quote, that validation happens in step 1, that a confirmation token is required for step 2, and that the person receives an email link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry.

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 dense but every sentence contributes essential information: what the tool is not, the two-step flow, the consent requirement, and the email-click behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the necessary procedural detail.

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 step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a click link before provider visibility). For a multi-step tool with consent and confirmation mechanics, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by fields from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact consent text, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This makes the parameters actionable rather than merely typed.

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 Venue Capacity Check') and clearly distinguishes itself from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. It also positions the tool as a two-step submission flow, making its purpose clear relative to the sibling 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 step-by-step usage instructions: first call with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token, then call again with the token only after the person agrees. It also states the condition that consent requires the person to have read and agreed to the exact consent line.

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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: checker_start/answer/tree handle different aspects of the decision guide, and enquiry_describe/fields/submit handle separate parts of the enquiry flow. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for the intended action.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case pattern with domain prefixes like checker_ and enquiry_. The main deviation is submit_enquiry reversing the prefix pattern, and the second word is sometimes a noun and sometimes a verb, but the naming remains readable and predictable overall.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: three for the decision guide and three for the enquiry submission flow. Every tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full intended user journey: navigating the checker from start through answers to verdict, obtaining the full question tree for reasoning, understanding the enquiry process, retrieving field schemas, and submitting an enquiry with confirmation. No critical step is missing.

Resources