a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

render_supplier_email_binding

Render the caller's requirement as a reviewable RFC 5322 supplier-email draft after rebuilding its canonical supplier package and repeating quote-stage screening. Only an allow verdict renders. The operation validates one explicit recipient and an accountable sender-domain envelope, but cannot verify SPF, DKIM, or DMARC and therefore returns sendable=false. An explicit specification.assembly with two or more parts returns decomposition_required before file inspection or rendering. It is a stateless artifact transformation only: it stores nothing, sends nothing, contacts no supplier or provider, and grants no quote, order, payment, or fabrication authority.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`intent`	No	Layer 1 — the problem. What the physical matter needs to DO. Use this for intent-driven requests where the agent describes purpose and a2a2p recommends solutions.
`contact`	No	Optional email or callback endpoint for quote delivery.
`deadline`	No	Required delivery date or timeframe. Maps to intent.timeline.
`quantity`	No	Number of units needed. Maps to intent.quantity.
`budget_usd`	No	Approximate budget in USD. Maps to intent.budget_envelope.
`constraints`	No	Hard constraints: tolerances, certifications, materials to avoid, size/weight limits. Maps to intent.functional_requirements.
`requirement`	No	Plain-language description of the physical need. Maps to intent.purpose. Include function, dimensions, materials, load/performance requirements, environment, and interfaces where known.
`callback_url`	No	Optional HTTPS URL. When the quote is ready, a2a2p POSTs it as JSON to this URL.
`email_binding`	Yes	Explicit envelope for a reviewable, non-sending RFC 5322 draft. No address is looked up or inferred.
`specification`	No	Layer 2 — the solution. What the physical matter IS. Populate what is known. Precise specifications produce faster, tighter quotes. Controlled vocabularies are preferred but open values are accepted.
`business_context`	No	Optional business requirements (expected volumes, cost targets, ROI constraints). If provided, the quote includes a business case.
`rejected_alternatives`	No	Options already considered and ruled out. Prevents re-suggesting and builds the learning corpus.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`artifact`	Yes
`contract`	Yes
`sendable`	Yes
`authority`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`conformance`	Yes
`binding_sha256`	Yes
`digest_semantics`	Yes
`sender_authentication`	Yes
`reply_route_verification`	Yes
`requirements_before_sending`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool stores nothing, sends nothing, contacts no provider, grants no authority, cannot verify SPF/DKIM/DMARC, returns sendable=false, and only renders on an allow verdict. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects and limitations.

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?

Every sentence in the description carries necessary information: what it renders, when it renders, what it cannot verify, when it rejects early, and what side effects it does not have. The content is front-loaded with purpose and then efficiently states constraints and limitations without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity, the lack of annotations, and the presence of a rich input schema plus output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs: screening dependency, allow-verdict gating, sendable=false limitation, decomposition_required path, and statelessness. It is complete enough for correct selection and safe invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds general context about recipient and sender-domain validation but does not provide meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents. It references specification.assembly, which is not defined in the visible schema, but does not clarify parameter usage overall.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Render the caller's requirement as a reviewable RFC 5322 supplier-email draft.' It also distinguishes the tool's scope by stating that only an allow verdict renders and that this is a non-sending artifact transformation, which separates it clearly from sibling package-building and procurement tools.

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?

The description gives clear operational conditions: rendering occurs only after an allow verdict, and multi-part specifications return decomposition_required before rendering. It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use this instead of X,' so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters have near-identical names and responsibilities: prepare_derived_beam_simulation, prepare_reviewed_beam_simulation, and prepare_simulation_study all produce bounded simulation studies, while the validate_* family has five variants with subtle input differences. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would frequently need to read an entire paragraph to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 24 tools follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern: build_, check_, request_, validate_, prepare_, run_, upload_, etc. There are no camelCase names, no vague single-word tools, and no stylistic outliers.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is at the heavy end of the calibration range, and a large subset of rectangular-beam preparation/validation tools could be consolidated. The broad physical-request and supplier pipeline justifies some of the count, but the overall surface still feels over-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are covered: upload, submit, revise, status, spec review, pricing/estimates, quote-job polling, supplier package/email rendering, and a full bounded simulation loop. Missing cancellation, request listing, and actual supplier send/order actions are real but peripheral gaps rather than workflow-killing dead ends.

render_supplier_email_binding

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources