public

Status of a proposal request

get_proposal_request_status

Read-only

Where a submitted proposal request stands (received, being prepared, proposal sent, confirmed, closed), looked up by the reference returned when it was submitted. Returns the stage, dates and the reply commitment; no personal data.

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": {
      "reference": "<reference>"
    },
    "name": "get_proposal_request_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reference`	Yes	The reference returned by request_a_proposal, e.g. PR-20260916-U8GB

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes
`nextStep`	Yes
`reference`	Yes
`receivedAt`	Yes	ISO timestamp
`statusText`	Yes
`lastUpdateAt`	Yes	ISO timestamp
`slaBusinessDays`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "lastUpdateAt": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "nextStep": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "receivedAt": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reference": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "slaBusinessDays": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "received",
+        "being_prepared",
+        "proposal_sent",
+        "confirmed",
+        "closed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "statusText": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "reference",
+    "status",
+    "statusText",
+    "receivedAt",
+    "lastUpdateAt",
+    "slaBusinessDays",
+    "nextStep"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the stage, dates, and reply commitment, and explicitly notes it returns no personal data. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, lists stages, and specifies return contents and exclusions. No fluff, every clause adds information.

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 read-only lookup with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, how to find the reference, what it returns, and what it deliberately excludes (personal data). No critical information is missing.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'reference' with pattern and example (100% coverage). The description adds provenance by stating the reference is the one returned when the request was submitted, which is not in the schema. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool looks up the status of a proposal request, enumerates the possible stages, and specifies it is looked up by the reference returned at submission. It is distinct from siblings like request_a_proposal (submission) and get_company_facts (company data), and the purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

The description explicitly ties usage to a prerequisite: 'the reference returned when it was submitted', implying the tool should be called after a proposal request is submitted. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

All public 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?