Skip to main content
Glama

Assess bid fit

assess_tender_fit
Read-only

Use this when the user asks whether their business should bid for a public contract, or which open tenders suit them best. Compares the tender's conditions of participation (turnover, insurance levels, experience and certifications), location and lot sizes with the company's profile, and returns a fit score with reasons, likely disqualifiers and gaps. Omit tender_reference to rank the open tenders that suit the company. It does not predict or guarantee an award. Do not use for general business strategy or for private-sector sales leads.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoWhen ranking without a tender_reference: the kind of work to look for, e.g. "NHS cleaning".
countryNoThe country to look in, when the user names one, e.g. "Canada", "UK" or "Spain" (an EU member state searches the rest of the EU there). Omit to use the user's own countries (the UK when they aren't signed in). Winquill covers the UK, Canada, the United States, Germany, France and the rest of the EU.
business_sizeNoThe company's size, e.g. "small" for under 50 staff. Use "vcse" for charities and social enterprises.
company_summaryNoWhat the company does, its size, turnover, certifications, insurance, where it works and past contracts, in the user's words, e.g. "6-person electrical contractor in Leeds, £800k turnover, CHAS and Cyber Essentials". Optional when the user has a saved Winquill profile.
more_referencesNoMore tenders to judge in the same call, by the same kind of reference, e.g. to compare a shortlist: up to 19, for 20 in all. Saves a call for each.
tender_referenceNoThe notice ID, procurement identifier, solicitation number or the buyer's own reference, e.g. "012345-2026" on Find a Tender, "WS4851234567" on CanadaBuys or "140D0427Q0879" on SAM.gov.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fitNo
foundNo
caveatNo
creditNo
tenderNoThe same facts as a search_tenders result.
resultsNo
summaryYes
notFoundNoThe references asked for that Winquill has no notice for.
profileUsedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / company_summary / description
      Previous value: -"What the company does, its size, turnover, certifications, insurance, where it works and past contracts, in the user's words, e.g. \"6-person electrical contractor in Leeds, £800k turnover, CHAS and Cyber Essentials\". Optional when the user has a saved Tenda profile."New value: +"What the company does, its size, turnover, certifications, insurance, where it works and past contracts, in the user's words, e.g. \"6-person electrical contractor in Leeds, £800k turnover, CHAS and Cyber Essentials\". Optional when the user has a saved Winquill profile."
    • changedInput schema / properties / country / description
      Previous value: -"The country to look in, when the user names one, e.g. \"Canada\", \"UK\" or \"Spain\" (an EU member state searches the rest of the EU there). Omit to use the user's own countries (the UK when they aren't signed in). Tenda covers the UK, Canada, the United States, Germany, France and the rest of the EU."New value: +"The country to look in, when the user names one, e.g. \"Canada\", \"UK\" or \"Spain\" (an EU member state searches the rest of the EU there). Omit to use the user's own countries (the UK when they aren't signed in). Winquill covers the UK, Canada, the United States, Germany, France and the rest of the EU."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / notFound / description
      Previous value: -"The references asked for that Tenda has no notice for."New value: +"The references asked for that Winquill has no notice for."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / more_references
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "More tenders to judge in the same call, by the same kind of reference, e.g. to compare a shortlist: up to 19, for 20 in all. Saves a call for each.",
      +  "items": {
      +    "description": "The notice ID, procurement identifier, solicitation number or the buyer's own reference, e.g. \"012345-2026\" on Find a Tender, \"WS4851234567\" on CanadaBuys or \"140D0427Q0879\" on SAM.gov.",
      +    "minLength": 3,
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 19,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / notFound
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The references asked for that Tenda has no notice for.",
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioural bounds: the comparison basis, the returned judgement categories, and the explicit disclaimer that it does not predict or guarantee an award. It stops short of stating anything about profile prerequisites or latency, so not a full 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then the mechanism, then the ranking mode, then the exclusions. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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?

Output schema and annotations carry the return shape and safety profile, and the description covers what remains: when to select it, the two operating modes, what dimensions are judged, and the limits of the result. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema only hints at: omitting tender_reference switches the tool from single-tender assessment to ranking, and the 'more_references ... saves a call for each' framing comes from the schema. The profile-vs-company_summary relationship is left to 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 a specific verb and resource ('assess... fit for a public contract'), enumerates exactly what is compared (turnover, insurance, experience, certifications, location, lot sizes) and what comes back (fit score with reasons, disqualifiers, gaps). This clearly separates it from search_tenders (find) and check_bid_readiness (prepare to bid).

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?

Opens with an explicit user-intent trigger ('when the user asks whether their business should bid... or which open tenders suit them best'), gives the mode switch ('omit tender_reference to rank open tenders'), and states two exclusions ('not for general business strategy or private-sector sales leads'). An agent can route on this without inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources