Colophon: translation quotes; image, music, font and patent licensing

Describe a need to Colophon in words

interpret_requirement

Give Colophon the buyer's requirement, or a correction or addition to it, in their own words: it is read into a structured requirement (each value says which words it came from), conflicting or unclear facts come back as one question, and words not yet read are kept as written. Pass the requirement (id, token) from the first answer to continue it. Nothing is sent or ordered: send_requirement sends it when the buyer says so. When you already have the fields in structured form, use submit_request instead.

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>",
      "utterance": "<utterance>"
    },
    "name": "interpret_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	The service, from list_propositions
`turn_id`	No	Your id for this message: a retry with the same id is applied once
`timezone`	No	The buyer's IANA time zone, for reading dates
`utterance`	Yes	The buyer's words, as written
`requirement`	No	The requirement to continue

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the key behavioral traits: values are traced back to their source words, conflicts or unclear facts return as a single question, and unparsed words are retained verbatim rather than dropped. It also clarifies that nothing is sent or ordered, which is the non-obvious safety fact for a readOnlyHint=false tool. It stops short of describing failure modes (invalid slug, unknown requirement id) or size limits, keeping it below 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 core action and the continuation rule are front-loaded, and the sibling routing closes it out. It is a dense single block — the clause about values tracing to source words and unread words being kept sits between the action and the routing — so a light structural separation would help, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return burden and does so: a structured requirement with provenance, or one consolidated question. Combined with the continuation instruction, nested requirement object, and the send-no-send boundary versus send_requirement, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 the baseline is 3, but the prose adds usage meaning the schema does not: the requirement object is a continuation handle to be passed from the first answer forward, and the utterance is the buyer's raw wording rather than a paraphrase. That clarifies how the two required parameters interact across turns.

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 states a specific verb and resource — give Colophon the buyer's requirement in their own words, read into a structured requirement — and names the two siblings it is not (send_requirement, submit_request). An agent can distinguish this from edit_requirement or state_purchasing_requirements without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use routing: pass requirement (id, token) from the first answer to continue an existing requirement, use send_requirement when the buyer is ready to commit, and use submit_request when fields are already structured. Both alternatives and their selecting conditions are stated inline.

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

All Colophon: translation quotes; image, music, font and patent licensing 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?