Forwardsmith buyer desk (read-only)

Way of working and method

get_approach

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns how a forward-deployed engineer of Forwardsmith works: Map, Build, Hand over; the five stations of the method and its golden rule; the six kinds of work; the eight points that belong in a statement of work; what must be ready before the start; and the handover test.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_approach"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No		en

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cite`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`ownership`	Yes
`work_types`	Yes
`handover_test`	Yes
`prerequisites`	Yes
`way_of_working`	Yes
`statement_of_work_points`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the concrete inventory of content that comes back, letting an agent judge coverage before calling. It does not say whether the content is static/cached or anything about language handling, which keeps it short of 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?

One sentence with the purpose front-loaded, then a semicolon-delimited inventory that is dense but scannable, and every clause names real returned content. It is on the long side for a single sentence, but no clause is filler.

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?

The tool is a simple static-content read with no required parameters, and an output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The only real omission is any handling of the language toggle and a one-line hint about when to consult this versus a sibling, so the definition is nearly complete for this complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single 'lang' parameter, its allowed values (en/nl), or the 'en' default. The enum is self-explanatory enough that an agent can recover the meaning from the schema alone, but by the stated rule the description is expected to compensate at low coverage and here it contributes nothing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns how a forward-deployed engineer of Forwardsmith works') and then enumerates the exact content sections returned: Map/Build/Hand over, five stations and golden rule, six kinds of work, eight SOW points, pre-start readiness, handover test. That enumeration makes it unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_offers, estimate_engagement or run_readiness_scan, which are transactional rather than reference content.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is reference material to consult when it needs to explain or apply Forwardsmith's method. There is no explicit 'call this when…' statement, no 'do not use for…' exclusion, and no pointer to which sibling to use instead for an actual engagement step.

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

All Forwardsmith buyer desk (read-only) 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?