IBDÅ

Prepare a project enquiry for IBDÅ

prepare_project_enquiry

Read-onlyIdempotent

Turn a user's need into a ready-to-send enquiry for IBDÅ. Returns a draft message, the link to the Start a Project form at www.ibda.co, a one-click email link to hello@ibda.co when the draft is short enough, a reference code and what IBDÅ does next. This tool sends nothing and does not store the enquiry: the user reviews the draft and sends it themselves. Only "summary" is required; a finished brief is not needed, so do not press the user for a stage, timeline or budget they do not have. Not for job applications (use https://www.ibda.co/careers).

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": {
      "summary": "<summary>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_project_enquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	The user's role in the organization.
`areas`	No	Which area best describes the need (one or more).
`stage`	No	Current stage.
`summary`	Yes	The idea, challenge or opportunity in the user's own words: what they hope to create, improve, investigate or make possible.
`language`	No	Language of the form link. Default en.
`location`	No	Where the organization or project is based.
`outcomes`	No	Outcome currently needed (one or more).
`timeline`	No	Target timeline, if the user has one.
`contact_name`	No	Optional. Used only to sign the draft.
`organization`	No
`anything_else`	No
`contact_email`	No	Optional. Used only in the draft.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds material value by stating explicitly that the tool 'sends nothing and does not store the enquiry' and that the user reviews and sends the draft themselves — a critical point of confusion for a compose/enquiry tool that an agent would otherwise assume performs a submission.

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-loaded with purpose and outputs, then the behavioural caveat, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries load. The first sentence is a dense run-on list of five outputs, but that density is buying information an agent needs.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema and 83% schema coverage, the description does the right compensatory work: it names the returned artefacts so the agent knows what to expect, and it defines the minimum viable input. Nothing essential is missing, though the absence of an output schema means the return shape is only sketched in prose.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description does reinforce the required/optional split ('Only "summary" is required; a finished brief is not needed'), which affects how the agent fills the other eleven fields, but it adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents for role, areas, stage, timeline and the contact fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Turn a user's need into a ready-to-send enquiry for IBDÅ' — then enumerates exactly what comes back (draft message, form link, email link, reference code, next steps). This is unmistakably different from the read-oriented siblings get_ibda_overview, get_ibda_page and search_ibda.

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?

Gives a clear negative routing rule ('Not for job applications (use https://www.ibda.co/careers)') and an interaction rule for the agent ('do not press the user for a stage, timeline or budget they do not have'). What is missing is any guidance on the inverse case — e.g. whether to call search_ibda or get_ibda_page first to gather context before composing.

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

All IBDÅ 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?