signaltender-mcp

Generate Shipley Volume III Past Performance & CPARS Citations

generate_cpars_past_performance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Transform unstructured project histories, prior contract summaries, and CPARS excerpts into Shipley Section L/M Past Performance Volume III citations with predicted DoD Source Selection Relevance ('Very Relevant' to 'Not Relevant') and Performance Confidence ratings, Scope/Magnitude/Complexity matrices, FAR 42.1503 5-Factor CPARS narratives, and Context-Challenge-Action-Result (CCAR) blocks. This is a read-only, stateless generative evaluation call where relevance/confidence ratings are model-inferred against Section M criteria (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; rfp_section_l_m_requirements and project_history_text accept up to 100,000 characters, and optional bidder_role_and_context calibrates Prime vs. Subcontractor/JV attribution and page budgets). Use this tool when building Volume III Past Performance contract citations and CPARS questionnaires; use generate_rfp_response instead for Volume I Technical Approach prose, or match_key_personnel for individual staff resumes.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_history_text`	Yes	Unstructured prior contract summaries, internal project delivery notes, or official CPARS evaluation excerpts (contract numbers, agencies, dollar values, FTEs, KPIs, and technical accomplishments).
`bidder_role_and_context`	No	Optional pursuit context specifying Prime vs. Subcontractor citation mix, Joint Venture / SBA Mentor-Protege structure (13 CFR 125.8), or Volume III page-limit constraints.	Prime Offeror submitting 3 Past Performance citations (2 Prime contracts + 1 Major Subcontractor contract) for a Federal / DoD best-value trade-off solicitation.
`rfp_section_l_m_requirements`	Yes	Target RFP Section L (Volume III Past Performance instructions, recency window, minimum annual/total dollar value, max citations), Section M (relevance evaluation criteria), and Section C/PWS core task areas.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`volume_summary`	No	Executive Past Performance Volume III summary, DoD Confidence rating prediction, and ready-to-paste Volume Introduction.
`past_performance_citations`	No	List of Shipley-formatted Past Performance citations with Relevance ratings, Scope/Magnitude/Complexity matrices, and CPARS narratives.
`relevance_gaps_and_mitigations`	No	Evaluator risk audit of potential Relevance gaps paired with FAR 15.305(a)(2) mitigation language.
`ppq_and_cor_interview_prep_checklist`	No	Actionable checklist for preparing Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and briefing Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) before government reference checks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / bidder_role_and_context / default

Added value: +"Prime Offeror submitting 3 Past Performance citations (2 Prime contracts + 1 Major Subcontractor contract) for a Federal / DoD best-value trade-off solicitation."

addedInput schema / properties / bidder_role_and_context / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

removedOutput schema / properties / gap_mitigation_strategies

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Shipley narrative mitigations for any recency, dollar-magnitude, or prime-role gaps.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / overall_confidence_assessment

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Predicted DoD Source Selection Performance Confidence rating (e.g., Substantial Confidence).",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / past_performance_citations

Added value: +{
+  "description": "List of Shipley-formatted Past Performance citations with Relevance ratings, Scope/Magnitude/Complexity matrices, and CPARS narratives.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / ppq_and_cor_interview_prep_checklist

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Actionable checklist for preparing Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and briefing Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) before government reference checks.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / relevance_gaps_and_mitigations

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Evaluator risk audit of potential Relevance gaps paired with FAR 15.305(a)(2) mitigation language.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / tailored_citations

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Shipley Volume III citations with Relevance rating, Scope/Magnitude/Complexity mapping, FAR 42.1503 5-factor CPARS narrative, and CCAR blocks.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / volume_summary

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Executive Past Performance Volume III summary, DoD Confidence rating prediction, and ready-to-paste Volume Introduction.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed9 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / bidder_role_and_context / description

Previous value: -"Optional bidder context such as Prime vs. Subcontractor citation mix, Joint Venture / Mentor-Protege structure, or page-limit constraints."New value: +"Optional pursuit context specifying Prime vs. Subcontractor citation mix, Joint Venture / SBA Mentor-Protege structure (13 CFR 125.8), or Volume III page-limit constraints."

addedInput schema / properties / bidder_role_and_context / maxLength
```
Added value: +20000
```

changedInput schema / properties / project_history_text / description

Previous value: -"Unstructured project histories, prior contract summaries, CPARS evaluation excerpts, or internal delivery notes to transform into Shipley Past Performance citations."New value: +"Unstructured prior contract summaries, internal project delivery notes, or official CPARS evaluation excerpts (contract numbers, agencies, dollar values, FTEs, KPIs, and technical accomplishments)."

addedInput schema / properties / project_history_text / maxLength
```
Added value: +100000
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_history_text / minLength
```
Added value: +40
```

changedInput schema / properties / rfp_section_l_m_requirements / description

Previous value: -"Raw text from the target RFP Section L (Volume III Past Performance instructions, recency/dollar/scope thresholds), Section M (evaluation criteria), and Section C/PWS technical scope."New value: +"Target RFP Section L (Volume III Past Performance instructions, recency window, minimum annual/total dollar value, max citations), Section M (relevance evaluation criteria), and Section C/PWS core task areas."

addedInput schema / properties / rfp_section_l_m_requirements / maxLength
```
Added value: +100000
```
addedInput schema / properties / rfp_section_l_m_requirements / minLength
```
Added value: +40
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "gap_mitigation_strategies": {
+      "description": "Shipley narrative mitigations for any recency, dollar-magnitude, or prime-role gaps.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "overall_confidence_assessment": {
+      "description": "Predicted DoD Source Selection Performance Confidence rating (e.g., Substantial Confidence).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tailored_citations": {
+      "description": "Shipley Volume III citations with Relevance rating, Scope/Magnitude/Complexity mapping, FAR 42.1503 5-factor CPARS narrative, and CCAR blocks.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that this is a stateless generative call, that relevance and confidence ratings are model-inferred against Section M criteria, and that an X-RapidAPI-Key is required. Those are decision-relevant behaviors (unverified model output, auth prerequisite) that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable, then behavior, then routing - a sensible order. The first sentence is a heavily overloaded list that could be split, which costs a point, but there is no filler.

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?

Covers the auth requirement, input size constraints, optional calibration parameter, model-inference caveat, and sibling boundaries; output details are covered by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining what bidder_role_and_context calibrates (Prime vs. Subcontractor/JV attribution and page budgets) and by restating the 100,000-character ceiling, though the latter duplicates the schema.

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?

States a specific verb, resource, and artifact set (Shipley Volume III Past Performance/CPARS citations) and names the siblings it is not (generate_rfp_response, match_key_personnel). An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool when building Volume III Past Performance contract citations and CPARS questionnaires' and then names two alternatives with the conditions that select them. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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

All signaltender-mcp 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?