FreeDailyPro Business Documents

business_nda_draft

Read-onlyIdempotent

NDA draft

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Effective date, any readable form.
`purpose`	Yes	What the information is shared for, finishing the sentence "to ...", for example "evaluate a software partnership".
`termYears`	No	Years the duty lasts. Default 2.
`governingLaw`	No	Whose law governs, for example "the State of Texas" or "England and Wales". Default: the place where the property or the parties are.
`receivingParty`	Yes
`disclosingParty`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / date

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Effective date, any readable form.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / governingLaw

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whose law governs, for example \"the State of Texas\" or \"England and Wales\". Default: the place where the property or the parties are.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / purpose / description

Added value: +"What the information is shared for, finishing the sentence \"to ...\", for example \"evaluate a software partnership\"."

addedInput schema / properties / termYears / description
```
Added value: +"Years the duty lasts. Default 2."
```

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / disclosingParty / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / purpose / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / receivingParty / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / termYears / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say a document is produced, what format the output takes, or whether any legal caveats apply to generated drafts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is only two words, so nothing is wasted, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool actually does.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a six-parameter legal document generator with no output schema, a two-word description leaves an agent without the information needed to invoke it confidently. It is not complete relative to the tool's 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 only 67% (date, purpose, termYears, governingLaw documented; disclosingParty and receivingParty bare), and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. With six parameters and a legal-document domain where defaults and formats matter, the description should have compensated but does not.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"NDA draft" merely restates the tool name (business_nda_draft) and title, offering no verb or scope beyond the resource itself. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it generates, validates, or explains an NDA, nor how it differs from siblings like business_contract_pack or business_poa_draft.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite many adjacent document-drafting siblings in the toolset. The only implied context is that the caller already knows they need an NDA.

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

All FreeDailyPro Business Documents 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?