Ringske

Add vendor

add-vendor

Adds a vendor to compare: a venue, caterer, photographer, band, florist, … Starts on the shortlist unless a status is given; a booked vendor is put in the budget automatically.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "add-vendor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`email`	No
`notes`	No
`phone`	No
`status`	No	shortlist, contacted, quoted, booked (also puts it in the budget) or rejected (needs decision_reason).
`address`	No
`website`	No	Full URL with https://.
`category`	Yes
`included`	No	What the quote includes.
`contact_name`	No
`follow_up_on`	No	YYYY-MM-DD: when to chase them.
`decision_note`	No
`quoted_amount`	No	The quote in euro, e.g. "4250".
`decision_reason`	No	Why it was rejected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description earns credit for disclosing the default shortlist state, the automatic budget insertion for booked vendors, and the decision_reason prerequisite for rejected. It does not say what the response contains (e.g., the new vendor id) or whether duplicates are merged.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, and the core behavior (default status) plus the most surprising side effect (budget insertion) are front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 14-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 43% schema coverage, the description covers the critical status semantics but leaves the bulk of the field set and the return value undocumented. An agent could call it correctly on the required fields but would be guessing on the optional ones.

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?

Schema coverage is 43% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does. It clarifies the status default and the booked→budget side effect, and notes that rejected needs decision_reason, but nine parameters (name, email, address, category, contact_name, decision_note, etc.) get no added meaning 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 ('Adds a vendor to compare') and immediately grounds it with concrete examples (venue, caterer, photographer, band, florist). The 'add' verb and the sibling name update-vendor/delete-vendor make the create role obvious, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The description gives behavioral defaults ('Starts on the shortlist unless a status is given') rather than when-to-use guidance. It never states when to reach for update-vendor instead, or when adding a vendor is inappropriate; usage is only implied.

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

All Ringske tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?