MCC Solutions

Contractor: accept or decline an offer

vendor_respond_offer

For an MCC contractor's own assistant: accept or decline one job offer from vendor_my_offers. Accepting commits the contractor to the job at the pay shown, so ask them first and pass confirm: true. Needs the contractor's agent key (Authorization: Bearer mccv_...).

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "vendor_respond_offer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`reason`	No	Optional reason when declining
`confirm`	No	Required true to accept

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare it is non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive. The description adds real value on top: accepting is a binding commitment at the listed pay, requires explicit confirmation, and requires an mccv_ bearer key. It says nothing about failure modes, whether a declined offer can be re-accepted, or what is returned, so it is helpful but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 the audience/scope, then the risk and the auth requirement. Nothing is padded and no sentence restates the title or name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutating tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers auth, confirmation and commitment but omits return behavior entirely, leaving the agent unable to know what a successful accept or decline yields. That is the main gap; the decline path and the optional reason are also unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 40%: id, kind and action carry no schema descriptions. The description reinforces confirm: true and implies id/kind are sourced from vendor_my_offers, but never explains the request-vs-booking distinction for kind or the effect of each action value. With low coverage the description should compensate more than this.

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 action pair (accept/decline) on a specific resource (one job offer) and pins the source to vendor_my_offers, which cleanly separates it from that sibling. An agent can tell this is the write-side counterpart to listing offers without opening either schema.

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?

It scopes usage to 'an MCC contractor's own assistant' and gives a concrete precondition: ask the contractor first and pass confirm: true. It also implies offers come from vendor_my_offers. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or how decline differs procedurally.

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

All MCC Solutions 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?