Tendmark Buildings: Organize my building’s Clean Buildings compliance

Describe a need to Tendmark Buildings in words

interpret_requirement

Give Tendmark Buildings 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": {
      "utterance": "<utterance>"
    },
    "name": "interpret_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the parsing behavior, that each extracted value records which words it came from, that conflicts and ambiguity are returned as a single consolidated question, and that unread words are preserved verbatim. It also states the safety boundary explicitly ("Nothing is sent or ordered"), which is exactly the reassurance an agent needs for a non-read-only but non-destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the mechanics, then the routing to alternatives — a sensible order with no filler. The first sentence is long and multi-clause (semicolon-chained), which costs a little readability, but every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With four parameters, a nested requirement object, and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden itself and does so: the agent learns it gets back a structured requirement, at most one clarifying question, and preserved raw text. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds lifecycle meaning the schema cannot convey: the requirement id/token pair is what you carry forward from a prior answer to continue the same requirement rather than starting a new one. It does not add anything for timezone or turn_id, which remain schema-only.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Give Tendmark Buildings the buyer's requirement ... in their own words") and immediately explains the transformation: the words are read into a structured requirement with per-value provenance. It explicitly distinguishes itself from send_requirement (which actually transmits) and submit_request (which takes already-structured fields), so an agent can pick it out of the sibling list 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 states the positive case (raw buyer words, or a correction/addition), the continuation case ("Pass the requirement (id, token) from the first answer to continue it"), and two explicit alternatives with the condition that selects each: send_requirement when the buyer authorizes sending, submit_request when the fields are already structured. When-not guidance is present rather than inferred.

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

All Tendmark Buildings: Organize my building’s Clean Buildings compliance 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?