a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

qualify_specification_exchange_need

Submit one real, unaffiliated low-voltage outdoor sensor enclosure need to A2A2P's ten-submission qualification cohort. Complete outside submissions are stored privately; public evidence remains content-free. This contacts no supplier, collects no payment, places no order, performs no engineering validation, and grants no fabrication authority.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`need`	Yes
`buyer`	Yes
`scope`	Yes
`contact`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes
`authority`	Yes
`commercial`	Yes
`candidate_lane`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / description

Previous value: -"Submits one real low-voltage outdoor sensor enclosure need to a private ten-submission qualification cohort. It contacts no supplier, charges nothing, places no order, and grants no authority."New value: +"Submits one real low-voltage outdoor sensor enclosure need in the private ten-submission first-wedge qualification cohort. It contacts no supplier, charges nothing, places no order, and grants no authority."

addedInput schema / properties / candidate_lane

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "low_voltage_outdoor_sensor_enclosure"
+  ]
+}

AddedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses privacy handling ('stored privately; public evidence remains content-free') and an unusually clear negative-scope list (no supplier contact, no payment, no order, no validation, no fabrication authority). It does not describe the post-submission lifecycle (review, timeline, how return_channel is used), keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the qualifying constraints follow. The second sentence is comma-dense but every clause conveys a distinct non-effect, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an 8-parameter tool with deeply nested required objects and zero schema-level descriptions, the description leaves major gaps (authority/commercial/contact semantics, cohort mechanics). It covers the framing well but not the input surface.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema properties carry no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only hints at a few fields ('unaffiliated' maps to evidence.unaffiliated_outside_submission, 'low-voltage' to scope.low_voltage, 'collects no payment' to commercial), leaving most of the eight required parameter groups — buyer, authority flags, contact permission, measurable use test, budget — unexplained.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Submit') with a specific resource ('low-voltage outdoor sensor enclosure need') and a specific destination ('ten-submission qualification cohort'). This is distinct enough from all siblings that an agent can identify it without inspecting the schema.

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?

It states eligibility constraints ('one real, unaffiliated') which imply when this tool is appropriate, but it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Usage must be inferred from the qualifiers rather than being spelled out.

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

All a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical 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.