agent-ready-kit

Create a binding-style proposal

create_proposal

Use this only when (a) quote confidence is medium or high, AND (b) user_consent_scope is 'ongoing_engagement' or 'one_time_quote'. Returns a proposal with terms, deliverables, and a checkout hand-off (ACP, AP2, or manual). Comparison-shopping callers are rejected with a 403-style error.

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": {
      "quote_id": "<quote_id>",
      "user_consent_scope": "<user_consent_scope>"
    },
    "name": "create_proposal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`quote_id`	Yes
`selected_tier`	No
`checkout_protocol`	No
`user_consent_scope`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sow`	No
`reason`	No	Present when status=rejected.
`status`	Yes
`checkout`	No
`next_action`	No	Present on manual protocol: the exact follow-up tool call that closes the deal autonomously (request_invoice with this proposal's quote_id — pay the invoice to trigger automatic delivery).
`proposal_id`	No
`message_for_user`	No	Plain-language summary the calling agent can render to its end user. Never includes sales-pressure language.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 14, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / next_action

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present on manual protocol: the exact follow-up tool call that closes the deal autonomously (request_invoice with this proposal's quote_id — pay the invoice to trigger automatic delivery).",
+  "properties": {
+    "arguments": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations lack behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), but description adds: returns proposal with terms, deliverables, checkout hand-off types, and 403 error for comparison-shopping. Side effects and authorization are not fully disclosed, but it's sufficient.

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 with front-loaded conditions and key output. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

High-level return behavior is described, but parameter details are sparse. Output schema likely covers return structure, yet the lack of parameter explanations leaves gaps for a tool with 4 params and 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, and description only partially explains 'user_consent_scope' via conditions. Other parameters ('quote_id', 'selected_tier', 'checkout_protocol') have no explanation, forcing reliance on names alone.

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 title 'Create a binding-style proposal' and description clearly state the tool creates a proposal. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'refine_quote' and 'request_quote' by specifying conditions and output. Verb+resource is precise.

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?

Explicit conditions for use are given: medium/high quote confidence and appropriate consent scope. It warns against comparison-shopping callers. However, no alternative tool is named for when conditions aren't met, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All agent-ready-kit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.