Firstmise: One contact for your kitchen opening service gaps

Send the requirement

send_requirement

Idempotent

Send the requirement to Firstmise once the buyer says to: the first send records the request (its receipt token is the requirement's token, for request_status and offers); a later send of a changed requirement records a revision of the same request. Name the revision the buyer saw. This orders nothing: an offer comes later and is accepted separately on its exact terms.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "token": "<token>",
      "revision": "<revision>"
    },
    "name": "send_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The requirement id from an earlier answer
`op_id`	No
`token`	Yes	Its private token (also the receipt token of the request it is sent as); keep it private
`action`	No	What the buyer wants done (default quote): to buy, lease, verify...
`contact`	No
`revision`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real context beyond that: the first send creates the request and its receipt token doubles as the requirement token used by request_status and offers, and it explicitly states the send orders nothing. It does not cover failure modes or what a repeat send with an unchanged revision does.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and trigger, then the first-send/revision distinction, then the non-binding caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the phrasing is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter mutation with a nested contact object and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: idempotent re-send behavior, revision naming, token reuse, and the fact that no order is placed. Gaps around op_id, contact, and error behavior keep it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description meaningfully explains two of the weaker parameters: token (it is the receipt token of the request) and revision (name the revision the buyer saw). It says nothing about op_id, contact, or action, which remain undocumented in both places.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Send the requirement to Firstmise') and immediately distinguishes the two modes: a first send that records the request versus a later send that records a revision. An agent can tell this apart from edit_requirement or submit_request, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('once the buyer says to') and a clear condition for the revision path ('a later send of a changed requirement'). It also sets expectations about what happens next ('an offer comes later and is accepted separately'), but never points to edit_requirement for pre-send changes or to request_status for follow-up.

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

All Firstmise: One contact for your kitchen opening service gaps 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?