Skip to main content
Glama

SecureLend Underwriting

Draft originator chase

draft_originator_chase

Draft an originator chase email. Status stays draft. A named person hits Send. If the lead is not yet a file, returns open_file_first and a suggested body without writing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "leadId": "<leadId>"
    },
    "name": "draft_originator_chase"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leadIdYesOriginatorLeadSchema.id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds genuine information beyond the annotations: the artifact stays in draft, a named human performs Send, and the not-yet-a-file path returns open_file_first with a suggested body and performs no write. That last point matters because readOnlyHint=false tells the agent a write may occur, and the description correctly scopes when it does not. Permissions or rate-limit behavior are not covered.

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 action and immediately followed by the constraint that matters. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter drafting tool with no output schema, the description covers the normal outcome (a draft), the human-in-the-loop constraint, and the alternate return shape on the guard path. The exact contents of a successful return are left implicit, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter leadId is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'the lead' being or not being a file adds mild meaning about the expected state of that id, but no format or lookup detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Draft an originator chase email.' An agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not, however, contrast itself with the nearby sibling chase_missing_documents, which is the one tool in the set an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied by the draft-only semantics and by the precondition that the lead must already be a file, but the description never states when to choose this over chase_missing_documents or when not to use it at all. The guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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.