Hilo Studio

Request a quote

hilo_request_quote

Sends a project enquiry to Hilo Studio on behalf of the user (it reaches the team by email; they reply within 24 h and the user gets a confirmation email). ONLY call this after the user has explicitly confirmed they want to contact the studio and has given their name and email. Never invent contact details.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language of the user: the confirmation email goes out in it.	en
`name`	Yes	The user's name.
`email`	Yes	The user's email, where the studio will reply.
`budget`	No	Budget range, if the user mentioned one.
`timing`	No	When they need it (question 3).
`company`	No	Company or brand, if given.
`project`	Yes	What they need: goals, context, what it's for. Use the user's own words.
`deadline`	No	Desired timing or deadline, if mentioned.
`interest`	No	Package of interest if the user picked one (from hilo_get_pricing), 'custom' for bespoke work, or 'unsure'.	unsure
`objective`	No	What the user wants to achieve (question 1).
`price_fit`	No	Optional: after seeing the recommended price, whether it fits what they had in mind.
`situation`	No	What's holding them back today (question 2; the valid options depend on the objective, hilo_recommend lists them).
`user_confirmed`	Yes	Must be true: the user explicitly agreed to send these details to Hilo Studio.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / interest / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "CREAR",
-  "NAVEGAR",
-  "IMPACTAR",
-  "custom",
-  "unsure"
-]New value: +[
+  "NAVEGAR",
+  "EXPLORAR",
+  "IMPACTAR",
+  "custom",
+  "unsure"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / objective / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "marca",
-  "web",
-  "herramienta",
-  "todo",
-  "nose"
-]New value: +[
+  "web",
+  "herramienta",
+  "todo",
+  "nose"
+]

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / lang

Added value: +{
+  "default": "en",
+  "description": "Language of the user: the confirmation email goes out in it.",
+  "enum": [
+    "es",
+    "en"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / objective

Added value: +{
+  "description": "What the user wants to achieve (question 1).",
+  "enum": [
+    "marca",
+    "web",
+    "herramienta",
+    "todo",
+    "nose"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / price_fit

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: after seeing the recommended price, whether it fits what they had in mind.",
+  "enum": [
+    "si",
+    "justo",
+    "hablar"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / situation

Added value: +{
+  "description": "What's holding them back today (question 2; the valid options depend on the objective, hilo_recommend lists them).",
+  "enum": [
+    "no-escriben",
+    "no-cualificados",
+    "presupuestos",
+    "anticuada",
+    "igual",
+    "cero"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / timing

Added value: +{
+  "description": "When they need it (question 3).",
+  "enum": [
+    "este-mes",
+    "trimestre",
+    "despues",
+    "sin-fecha"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write. The description adds real context beyond them: the enquiry reaches the team by email, the reply window is 24 h, the user receives a confirmation email, and an explicit consent precondition exists. It stops short of stating rate limits, failure/partial-failure behavior, or whether the submission can be recalled.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the hard precondition. No filler, and the most safety-critical instruction (explicit confirmation) is given last-sentence prominence.

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 13-parameter outbound write with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: consent, data sourcing, and the observable outcome (email + confirmation). It does not say what the tool returns on success/failure or how to proceed if the user has only partially answered the questionnaire, which would round out 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters including enum meanings and the const-true constraint on user_confirmed. The description only reinforces that name and email must come from the user; it adds no format or interaction detail (e.g. how objective/situation enums pair with hilo_recommend) beyond what the schema and annotations supply.

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 ('Sends a project enquiry to Hilo Studio') plus the delivery channel (email to the team). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read tools (list/get/find/recommend), which all retrieve information rather than submit it.

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?

Explicitly gates invocation: 'ONLY call this after the user has explicitly confirmed' and 'has given their name and email', plus an exclusion ('Never invent contact details'). An agent knows both the precondition and the failure mode without reading the schema.

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

All Hilo Studio 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?