Skip to main content
Glama

agent-ready-kit

by com.mudko

Submit Lead

submit_lead

Use this when the user has indicated interest in being followed up with — even before formal checkout. Capture is non-binding. REQUIRED CONTACT FIELDS: contact_name, contact_phone, best_consult_time. Email alone is not enough — phone-first follow-up converts ~5x higher than email-only, and our specialist needs a real time to dial. ASK FOR ALL THREE explicitly. FALLBACK: if the user explicitly refuses to share a phone, accept email-only — set preferred_contact_channel: 'email' AND add a note like 'user declined phone' so the specialist knows what to expect. Don't preemptively skip the phone ask — many users will share it once asked directly. Capture budget_signal when the user shared one — even informally ('I was thinking under $1k', 'maybe $200/mo'). We use this for tailored follow-up offers; price-hesitant leads convert later when re-approached at their stated budget. Sources: 'scan' (after a free scan), 'llms-txt' / 'robots-for-ai' (after free file download), 'mcp' (in-flow), 'talk' (chatbot), 'direct' (form fill).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail (required).
notesNoFree-form context the agent wants the specialist to read.
domainNoCustomer's primary domain. Strongly recommended.
sourceYes
blockerNoCLOSE_OR_HANDOFF: when this is a HANDOFF (you couldn't close), state WHY in one line — e.g. 'needs custom booking integration', 'wants to review with partner', 'price-sensitive, budget unclear'. Lets the specialist pick up exactly where you left off.
timezoneNoIANA timezone like 'America/New_York'. Optional.
agent_nameNoName of the calling agent (for analytics).
contact_nameNoFull name of the person — strongly recommended for human follow-up.
budget_signalNoFree-form budget hint the user shared (e.g. 'around $500/mo', 'under $5k setup', 'looking for cheapest option'). Drives tailored re-engagement offers.
contact_phoneNoPhone number (E.164 format preferred).
best_consult_timeNoFree-form like 'weekday afternoons ET'. Optional but useful.
custom_tool_specsNoCLOSE_OR_HANDOFF: structured specs for any custom tools the customer needs (booking, quote engine, search, etc.), captured so nothing is lost before the build. One object per tool.
close_recommendationNoCLOSE_OR_HANDOFF: your one-line recommendation for how the specialist should close this lead — the angle, the tier, the objection to address.
preferred_contact_channelNoHow to reach the user. Defaults to 'email'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leadNo
statusYes
messageNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides rich behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Capture is non-binding', explains phone-first follow-up conversion rates, and details budget signal usage. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint false, etc.) as the tool is non-destructive.

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 well-structured with bold headings, fallback, and bullet-like emphasis. However, it is somewhat verbose; could be slightly more concise while retaining all valuable details.

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?

Given 14 parameters, 93% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied), the description covers all important aspects: required fields, fallback, budget signals, close/handoff instructions, and tool specs. It is complete for complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 93%, but the description adds substantial meaning: explains required contact fields, why phone is prioritized, how to capture budget_signal, and the source enum values. This goes well beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 'Use this when the user has indicated interest in being followed up with — even before formal checkout.' It specifies the verb (submit lead) and resource (lead capture) and distinguishes from sibling tools like start_checkout by mentioning pre-checkout usage.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('user has indicated interest...') and provides detailed fallback instructions ('if the user explicitly refuses to share a phone, accept email-only'). It also implicitly contrasts with formal checkout tools.

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 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with descriptions that prevent confusion. Tools like scan_site and run_site_audit are differentiated by their focus on AI-readiness vs. site quality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with clear action words like 'scan', 'create', 'get', 'verify'. Even longer names like 'summarize_scan_for_humans' maintain consistency.

Tool Count4/5

22 tools is slightly above the ideal range but justified by the comprehensive scope of the server, covering scanning, analysis, quoting, file delivery, and verification. Some tools like generate_files and get_customer_files could overlap but serve different contexts.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the entire workflow from site scanning to deployment verification, with no obvious dead ends. All necessary operations for making a site agent-ready are present, including edge cases like x402 validation and credential verification.

Resources