Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.washroomquotes

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Washroom Quotes — 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 washroom service providers, 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 washroom service providers, 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 carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the consent requirement with the exact consent text, the email-link step, and the non-guaranteed nature of the quote. This is far more transparent than typical mutation tools.

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 front-loaded with the most important distinction ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then organizes the process into clear Step 1 and Step 2 instructions. Every sentence carries necessary information, including the exact consent wording, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 does, the email-link requirement, and the consent prerequisite. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly across both steps.

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 describes all parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds crucial semantic context: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent has a precise meaning tied to the quoted consent line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This materially improves an agent's ability to populate the parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Washroom Quotes' and immediately clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly differentiates the action from any purchase-oriented sibling and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 an explicit two-step procedure with exact conditions: call first with answers and consent=true, then call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It also specifies that the person must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry, giving clear operational guidance.

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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct stage of the enquiry process: explaining the service, providing the field schema, and submitting with consent confirmation. enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields both orient the agent but do not overlap functionally.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and clearly related to enquiries, but the pattern is inconsistent: two names are noun-first (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while submit_enquiry is verb-first. Still readable and predictable enough.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for this narrow purpose: read-first explanation, field schema, and submission/confirmation. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full enquiry lifecycle from orientation to field discovery to two-step consent submission. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.

Resources