Skip to main content
Glama

a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

by com.a2a2p

request_provider_estimate

Submit a requirement to the durably queued provider-estimate workflow without holding the connection open. Returns a quote_job_id in milliseconds; scheduled settlement runs outside request waitUntil. Scheduled provider contact is not active in this release and cannot be enabled by an environment flag, so admitted jobs currently terminate as degraded with a deterministic model estimate. Additive processes with an STL design file only, for now. The requirement is screened before storage; any future provider activation must also screen the exact file bytes before contact. Every admission result is machine-readable. Rejections carry a stable closed-set reason_code, retry boundary, required input, and deterministic next_action; admitted responses carry the same versioned admission contract. An explicit specification.assembly with two or more parts is rejected before job creation or provider contact and must be decomposed first. Estimate only — never a quote, order, payment, or fabrication commitment. Poll with check_quote_job until a terminal status: completed (provider figure), degraded (deterministic model estimate with the provider's absence explained), or refused (screening).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentNoLayer 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.
contactNoOptional email or callback endpoint for quote delivery.
deadlineNoRequired delivery date or timeframe. Maps to intent.timeline.
quantityNoNumber of units needed. Maps to intent.quantity.
budget_usdNoApproximate budget in USD. Maps to intent.budget_envelope.
constraintsNoHard constraints: tolerances, certifications, materials to avoid, size/weight limits. Maps to intent.functional_requirements.
requirementNoPlain-language description of the physical need. Maps to intent.purpose. Include function, dimensions, materials, load/performance requirements, environment, and interfaces where known.
callback_urlNoOptional HTTPS URL. When the quote is ready, a2a2p POSTs it as JSON to this URL.
specificationNoLayer 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_contextNoOptional business requirements (expected volumes, cost targets, ROI constraints). If provided, the quote includes a business case.
rejected_alternativesNoOptions already considered and ruled out. Prevents re-suggesting and builds the learning corpus.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals durable queuing, asynchronous settlement outside waitUntil, millisecond quote_job_id returns, the current degraded model-estimate behavior, screening before storage, the rejection contract (reason_code, retry boundary, required input, next_action), and the terminal statuses. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 description is dense but each clause serves a purpose, and the primary action is front-loaded. There is minor redundancy between 'Every admission result is machine-readable' and 'admitted responses carry the same versioned admission contract,' but the overall structure progresses logically from action to behavior to constraints to follow-up. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully explains the return value (quote_job_id), the three terminal statuses (completed, degraded, refused), and how to poll with check_quote_job. It also covers current provider inactivity, screening behavior, rejection contract fields, and the estimate-only guarantee. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret its result correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is warranted. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter constraints beyond the schema: additive processes require an STL design file, and an explicit specification.assembly with two or more parts is rejected and must be decomposed. These nuances help an agent avoid common invocation errors without relying solely on parameter descriptions.

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 resource: 'Submit a requirement to the durably queued provider-estimate workflow.' It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns (quote_job_id), and it explicitly differentiates the estimate action from a quote, order, payment, or fabrication commitment. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_quote_job and request_physical_solution.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use for provider estimates, not for quotes/orders/payments; do not submit assemblies with two or more parts unless decomposed; additive processes currently require an STL design file. It also prescribes the follow-up path by directing the agent to poll with check_quote_job until a terminal status, and it discloses the current inactive-provider behavior.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources