IG Digital Lab, Sacramento, CA

Order the free written audit

request_free_audit

Order IG Digital Lab's free audit: a written review, sent by email within two business days, of where a business is doing by hand what software should be doing. Use it only when the person wants that audit, not for a general question or message (use submit_contact_request for those). Only call this with the person's explicit consent, their real name and a real phone or email; the company, website, industry and the process to look at are optional. The request goes to a human.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "request_free_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Full name of the requester.
`email`	No	Email address. Give this or phone.
`phone`	No	Phone number. Give this or email.
`company`	No	Company name.
`website`	No	Company website URL.
`industry`	No	Industry the company operates in.
`bottleneck`	No	The manual process or bottleneck to look at.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the request routes to a human, that delivery is by email within two business days, and that explicit consent plus genuine contact details are required. It does not state what happens on submission failure, duplicate requests, or rate limits, which are the remaining gaps for a lead-submission tool.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the tool's purpose before the routing rule and the consent constraints. Every sentence carries operational weight, though the consent and data-quality conditions could be split for faster scanning.

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?

For a 7-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the deliverable and timeline, the human recipient, the consent rule, required versus optional inputs, and the sibling alternative. There is no meaningful missing context for correct invocation.

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; the description adds meaning by clarifying that only name is required while company, website, industry and the process to look at ('bottleneck') are optional, and by imposing a real-data expectation on name and phone/email. It still does not explain how phone versus email is chosen when both are supplied.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Order IG Digital Lab's free audit') and immediately defines the deliverable: a written review sent by email within two business days identifying where a business is doing by hand what software should do. It also expressly distinguishes the tool from the sibling submit_contact_request, so an agent can pick between the two without opening a 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 gives an explicit when-not ('not for a general question or message') and names the alternative (submit_contact_request) that handles those cases. It further narrows usage with a consent precondition and a data-quality precondition (real name, real phone or email).

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

All IG Digital Lab, Sacramento, CA 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?