Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.whatcanidrive

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to What Can I Drive — 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 driver training provider, 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 driver training provider, 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

A4.7/5.0
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 stateful behavior, validation and return of a summary/consent line/token, the email with a click link, and the condition that providers see the enquiry only after the link is clicked. It also provides the exact consent wording, which is essential behavioral context.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: the two-step sequence, the consent text, and the email-link behavior are all essential. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the key exclusions, then structured by Step 1 and Step 2.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly what to pass, what step 1 returns, what to show the person, when to call step 2, and what happens after submission. Nothing critical for calling it correctly seems to be missing.

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 meaningful value: it explains that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, gives the exact consent text, and clarifies that confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This goes beyond the schema's brief parameter 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to What Can I Drive') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also names the two-step nature of the operation, which clearly distinguishes it from simpler submission tools and from the sibling checker_* and 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit step-by-step invocation protocol: step 1 with answers and consent, then step 2 only after the person agrees, using the confirmation token. It also states the exclusion ('NOT a purchase') and the consent requirement. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the usage context is clear enough.

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The tool set cleanly separates two distinct workflows: the checker tools for navigating a decision guide and the enquiry tools for submitting a form. Within each group, every tool has a clearly different role—start, answer, tree, describe, fields, submit—so an agent is unlikely to confuse them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a resource-prefix pattern such as checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields. The exception is submit_enquiry, which uses verb_noun form instead of the enquiry_ prefix, and checker_start/answer/tree mix verb and noun suffixes, creating a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a site with two distinct user-facing features. Each tool serves a necessary step in its workflow, and there are no redundant utilities or excessive entries.

Completeness5/5

The checker workflow is fully covered: start, per-step answers, and full tree access for validation. The enquiry workflow is also complete with explanation, field schema, and a two-step submission flow that includes consent and confirmation handling.

Resources