Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.csvconvert

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to CSV Convert — 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 data extraction suppliers, 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 data extraction suppliers, 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

A4.5/5.0
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 excels: it discloses the two-step validation/submission flow, the return of a confirmation token, the need for user approval before Step 2, and the email-link requirement before providers see the enquiry. It also defines consent exactly, which is critical for correct invocation.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured with explicit 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' labels. Every sentence adds necessary information for correct use, though slightly longer than average. It earns its length given the two-step complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides nearly everything an agent needs: how to initiate, how to confirm, what to show the user, and what happens after submission. Minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior if consent is false, what the confirmation token looks like), but the core flow is fully covered.

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. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the workflow roles of each parameter: answers keyed from enquiry_fields, consent='true', and the confirmation token from Step 1. This is more than a restatement of the schema.

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?

States the specific action ('Submits an enquiry to CSV Convert') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step nature is front-loaded in both title and description, making it distinct from siblings like enquiry_describe and 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear step-by-step invocation guidance: Step 1 with answers/consent, then Step 2 with the confirmation token. It references enquiry_fields for keying answers and specifies the consent requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool beyond the 'not a purchase' warning.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The checker_* tools are cleanly separated into start, step-by-step answer, and full tree view, while the enquiry_* tools cover description, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools use useful domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), but the word order is inconsistent: checker_answer, checker_start, and enquiry_describe are object+verb, while submit_enquiry is verb+object, and checker_tree and enquiry_fields are object+noun. The convention is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count5/5

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

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the decision guide lifecycle (start, answer, full tree) and the enquiry lifecycle (describe, fields, submit with two-step confirmation). No obvious operations are missing for the stated domain.

Resources