Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.wastecarriercheck

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Waste Carrier 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 registered waste carrier or compliance specialist, 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 registered waste carrier or compliance specialist, 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?

Even though no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the two-step side effects, the validation step, the confirmation token behavior, the follow-up email with a required link, and the exact meaning of consent. The description goes well beyond a minimal definition and clearly informs the agent about the tool's real-world impact.

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 yet tightly structured, front-loading the critical 'not a purchase' distinction and then walking through the two steps in logical order. Every sentence contributes essential information: consent text, confirmation token, and the email-link condition. There is no fluff 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and side effects. It clearly states what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 does, and the eventual user-facing outcome. The description leaves no critical gaps for an agent to call this tool successfully.

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?

The schema already covers parameters with 100% description coverage, and the tool description adds crucial semantic context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both steps, and confirmation must be the token returned in step 1. This transforms the parameters from generic fields into a meaningful workflow.

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 clearly states the tool submits an enquiry to Waste Carrier Check, immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and explains the two-step submission process. It names the specific resource and the action, making it distinct from sibling tools like checker_answer or enquiry_fields.

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 instructions: call first with answers and consent=true, show the user the summary and consent line, then call again only after user agreement and with the confirmation token. It also specifies the required consent wording and notes that the provider only sees the enquiry after the user clicks the email link, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The checker tools are mostly distinct: start initializes, answer advances the flow, and tree provides the full graph for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry tools are clearly separated by purpose, though checker_answer and checker_tree both deal with question/option data and could be confused at first glance.

Naming Consistency3/5

There is a consistent 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' prefix, but the second half mixes verbs and nouns: checker_start/checker_answer are actions, checker_tree/enquiry_fields are resources, and submit_enquiry is a verb-noun pair. The convention is readable but not fully uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering two related workflows: the checker Q&A flow and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and the set is neither thin nor bloated.

Completeness5/5

The checker flow is complete with start, step-by-step traversal, and full tree access, while the enquiry flow covers instructions, schema discovery, and a confirmation-gated submission process. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.

Resources