Chamfer: CNC machining, molding, sheet metal and PCB RFQs; MRO parts by part number

Read a requirement as it stands

get_requirement

Read-onlyIdempotent

A Chamfer requirement as it stands: each value with where it came from, what it replaced, the open question, words not yet read, whether it was sent and any offer on it.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "get_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The requirement id from an earlier answer
`slug`	Yes	The service, from list_propositions
`token`	Yes	Its private token (also the receipt token of the request it is sent as); keep it private

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the returned content: provenance per value, what it replaced, the open question, unread words, sent status, and any offer. It does not mention authorization failure or what happens with a wrong/expired token, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned facets; nothing is repeated. Some clauses ('words not yet read', 'any offer on it') are terse enough to be slightly opaque, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it gives a rough inventory rather than a usable structure, leaving field names and nesting unknown. For a three-parameter authenticated read it is adequate but not complete.

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 id, slug and token are already fully documented, including the token's privacy caveat. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase ('A Chamfer requirement as it stands: each value with where it came from...') that only implies retrieval by enumerating returned content; it never states a verb like 'fetch' or 'read'. The title carries the actual action, and the listing does distinguish it from mutating siblings like edit_requirement, but the purpose is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (the token from a prior request), and no routing to alternatives such as interpret_requirement or inspect_offer. Usage is only implied by the read-only framing.

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

All Chamfer: CNC machining, molding, sheet metal and PCB RFQs; MRO parts by part number 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?