public

How to request a proposal

how_to_request_a_proposal

Read-only

The checklist a traveller or agent should send to Kratons to receive a bespoke proposal, the pricing policy, and how a human advisor follows up. Read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "how_to_request_a_proposal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`how`	Yes
`guide`	Yes	The full guide as Markdown
`contact`	Yes
`checklist`	Yes	What a traveller or agent should include in a request
`afterwards`	Yes	What happens after a request is submitted
`pricingPolicy`	Yes
`agentStatement`	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": {
+    "afterwards": {
+      "description": "What happens after a request is submitted",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "agentStatement": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "checklist": {
+      "description": "What a traveller or agent should include in a request",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "contact": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "email": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "phones": {
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": false,
+            "properties": {
+              "e164": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "label": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "number": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "label",
+              "number",
+              "e164"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "email",
+        "phones"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "guide": {
+      "description": "The full guide as Markdown",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "how": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pricingPolicy": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "rules": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "summary": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "summary",
+        "rules"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "guide",
+    "how",
+    "checklist",
+    "afterwards",
+    "contact",
+    "pricingPolicy",
+    "agentStatement"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats 'Read-only' rather than adding substantially new behavioral detail. It adds context that the content includes a checklist, pricing policy, and human follow-up, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior beyond that. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence plus 'Read-only', with the core content front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a documentation-like tool, though the repeated read-only signal adds little beyond annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the core content and purpose well. The main gap is that it does not explicitly connect to the sibling request_a_proposal action, so an agent might initially wonder whether this tool performs the request or simply provides instructions.

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 tool has zero parameters)Skip, so schema coverage is complete and there is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify. The description appropriately does not need to add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as informational: it returns the checklist a traveller or agent should send, the pricing policy, and how a human advisor follows up. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling request_a_proposal, but the resource and scope are specific enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for learning how to request a proposal before doing so, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus request_a_proposal or other siblings. The read-only label hints that this is not the action tool, but no alternative routing or exclusion is stated.

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?