Prosp

Run circular opportunity

run_circular_opportunity

Start a counterpart search for one circular opportunity, by the handle from list_circular_opportunities. Debits credits and returns a jobId immediately; poll get_discovery_status then get_discovery_results exactly as for find_prospects. What is searched for is derived server-side from the graded opportunity — you pass a handle, not criteria.

When the entry has requires_resource_confirmation: true, its resource is something WE INFERRED rather than something the customer stated, and this call is REFUSED (404 resource_confirmation_required, no charge) unless you pass confirmed_resource. ASK THE CUSTOMER FIRST and send THEIR WORDING — do not echo our label back and do not invent one. Their answer is retained as a stated fact about their business and informs every later inference, so a guess becomes a durable error. An unknown handle is refused with a refund.

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": {
      "handle": "<handle>"
    },
    "name": "run_circular_opportunity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	Yes
`confirmed_resource`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing credit debit at call time, the immediate jobId return with async follow-up, refusal semantics (404 `resource_confirmation_required` with no charge), refund on unknown handle, and the durable downstream consequence of a guessed resource. This is exactly the mutation/billing/error behavior the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the async follow-up before the conditional confirmation rules, and every sentence carries real information. The heavy capitalization ('REFUSED', 'ASK THE CUSTOMER FIRST') is justified by the stated risk of a durable bad inference, though the prose is denser than strictly necessary.

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 a two-parameter mutation-ish tool with billing side effects, an output schema covering the return, and a multi-step async workflow, the description supplies everything needed: input provenance, credit cost, jobId handoff, polling sequence, error codes, and the confirmation precondition. An agent could call this correctly on the first attempt.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains where `handle` comes from, and defines `confirmed_resource` operationally — only valid when the flag is set, must be the customer's own wording, must not echo the server's label or be invented. That is meaning no schema could convey.

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 ('Start a counterpart search for one circular opportunity') and immediately disambiguates the input by tying `handle` to the sibling tool list_circular_opportunities. It also clarifies the unusual semantics — the search criteria are derived server-side, so the caller passes a handle rather than criteria — which an agent could not infer from the name alone.

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?

Gives explicit next-step routing: poll get_discovery_status then get_discovery_results 'exactly as for find_prospects', naming both siblings in order. It also states the precise precondition for the second parameter (`requires_resource_confirmation: true`) and the consequence of omitting it, so the agent knows both when to use the tool and when to supply the optional argument.

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

All Prosp 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?