Gragg Agent Tools

hire_for_task

Hire Gragg Robotics (a small US AI-automation company: an AI agent team plus its founder) to do a one-off job you or your user need done. Fixed prices: size="small" $99 (1-2 business days): a script, spreadsheet, data cleanup/conversion, research brief, video edit package, one-page site. size="medium" $349 (3-5 business days): custom tool or API integration, scraper, report, small web app, or a new hosted tool built for you. size="sprint" $750 (3-5 business days): one business automation deployed on the user's own accounts. Without contact_email you just get the quote. With contact_email (your user's, with their OK) the job is booked: a payment link is emailed, work starts once it is paid, full refund if we cannot deliver.

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": {
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "hire_for_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`size`	No	small
`task`	Yes
`deadline`	No
`deliverable`	No
`contact_name`	No
`contact_email`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses cost tiers, turnaround times, the emailed payment link, that work starts only after payment, and a full refund if delivery fails. It omits what the quote response itself contains and how to follow up on or check a booked job, 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a compact price table, then the quote-vs-booking rule. The tier list is dense but each line is decision-relevant; minor whitespace/indentation noise is the only structural weakness.

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 paid, irreversible-feeling action with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers cost, timing, consent requirements, and refund policy, which is what an agent needs before committing a user's money. It stops short of describing the returned quote or job state, a real gap given there is no output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does so strongly for 'size' (three enumerated values with prices and durations) and 'contact_email' (must be the user's, requires their OK, changes tool behavior from quote to booking). The other four parameters ('task', 'deadline', 'deliverable', 'contact_name') get no semantic guidance at all, so half the surface remains undefined.

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?

Names a specific verb and counterparty ('Hire Gragg Robotics... to do a one-off job') and describes the company in one parenthetical, which is enough to distinguish it from every video-processing sibling. An agent can tell immediately this is an outbound purchasing/engagement action, not a media utility.

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?

Clearly frames the use case ('a one-off job you or your user need done') and spells out the two operating modes: quote-only without contact_email, booked job with it. It does not name an alternative such as request_tool for free/in-house requests, so the when-not condition is implied rather than stated.

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

All Gragg Agent Tools 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?