Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

signaltender-mcp

by com.onrender.b2b-contract-parser-api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate DoD Other Transaction Authority (OTA / 10 U.S.C. 4022) Prototype White Paper & Milestone Schedule

generate_ota_white_paper
Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert commercial dual-use technology specifications and DoD Problem Statements / Commercial Solutions Openings (CSOs) / Request for Prototype Proposals (RPPs) across DIU, C5ISR/CECOM, SOSSEC, SpEC, MTEC, NSTXL, and AFWERX into a 10 U.S.C. 4022 statutory eligibility assessment, evaluator-ready OTA Prototype White Paper sections, an outcome-based Fixed-Price Payable Milestone Schedule & Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), a Phase 3 Sole-Source Follow-On Production Strategy under 10 U.S.C. 4022(f), an OTA Intellectual Property & Data Rights posture (FAR/DFARS/Bayh-Dole exempt), and consortium pitch deck talking points. This is a read-only, stateless, non-destructive capture and prototype proposal generator (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; commercial_solution_and_problem_topic_text accepts 20 to 45,000 characters, while target_ota_consortium_and_pathway and nontraditional_contractor_and_cost_share_status calibrate consortium formatting and 10 U.S.C. 4022(d)(1) Nontraditional Defense Contractor [NDC], Small Business, or 1/3 cost-share rules). Use this tool when drafting a DoD 10 U.S.C. 4022 Other Transaction Authority (OTA) Prototype White Paper, DIU Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) solution brief, or Fixed-Price Payable Milestone Schedule; use generate_sbir_sttr_commercialization instead for 15 U.S.C. 638 SBIR/STTR Phase I-III proposals, or generate_rfp_response for traditional FAR Part 15 technical proposal volumes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_ota_consortium_and_pathwayNoTarget OTA pathway or consortium (e.g., DIU Commercial Solutions Opening [CSO], SOSSEC, SpEC Space Enterprise Consortium, C5ISR, NSTXL, AFWERX; defaults to 'DIU_Commercial_Solutions_Opening_CSO').DIU_Commercial_Solutions_Opening_CSO
commercial_solution_and_problem_topic_textYesDoD Problem Statement / CSO / RPP topic description (DIU, C5ISR/CECOM, SOSSEC, SpEC, MTEC, NSTXL) and vendor's dual-use commercial technology, TRL, and architecture (20 to 45,000 characters).
nontraditional_contractor_and_cost_share_statusNo10 U.S.C. 4022 statutory eligibility posture: Nontraditional Defense Contractor (NDC), Small Business, or Traditional Defense Contractor with NDC sub / 1/3 cost-share (defaults to 'Nontraditional_Defense_Contractor_NDC_Zero_Cost_Share').Nontraditional_Defense_Contractor_NDC_Zero_Cost_Share

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoExecution status ('success').
executive_white_paper_sectionsNoEvaluator-ready OTA Prototype White Paper / Solution Brief sections tailored to DIU CSO and DoD Consortium scoring criteria.
payable_milestone_schedule_and_romNoOutcome-based Fixed-Price Payable Milestone Schedule and Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing table.
consortium_pitch_deck_talking_pointsNoHigh-impact talking points for the Phase 2 DIU / Consortium oral pitch and live technical demonstration.
ota_statutory_eligibility_assessmentNo10 U.S.C. 4022 statutory eligibility assessment covering NDC/Small Business status, cost-share exemption, and 10 U.S.C. 4022(f) sole-source production eligibility.
dual_use_and_follow_on_production_strategyNoTRL advancement roadmap, commercial dual-use viability, and 10 U.S.C. 4022(f) non-competitive follow-on production transition strategy.
intellectual_property_and_data_rights_postureNoOTA Intellectual Property and Data Rights negotiation posture leveraging FAR/DFARS/Bayh-Dole exemptions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful non-schema context: it is stateless, requires an X-RapidAPI-Key, and gives character bounds for the core input. It does not describe response shape or failure behavior, but the output schema is present, so this is still strong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is front-loaded and most clauses carry substantive information, but the first sentence is a very long, dense run-on that stacks statutory citations and consortium names. It is readable but not efficiently structured, and the same consortium list appears in both the description prose and the parameter descriptions.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, alternatives, auth requirements, stateless behavior, and input constraints. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining what each parameter controls: the consortium/pathway parameter calibrates consortium formatting, and the NDC/cost-share parameter calibrates 10 U.S.C. 4022(d)(1) eligibility handling. This adds real semantic value even though the schema already documents the fields.

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 (convert inputs into an OTA prototype white paper and milestone schedule) and enumerates the exact deliverables: statutory eligibility assessment, white paper sections, milestone schedule/ROM, Phase 3 strategy, IP/data-rights posture, and pitch points. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming `generate_sbir_sttr_commercialization` and `generate_rfp_response` as alternatives.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (drafting a 10 U.S.C. 4022 OTA prototype white paper, DIU CSO solution brief, or fixed-price payable milestone schedule) and when not to use it, routing SBIR/STTR work and FAR Part 15 proposals to named sibling tools. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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

All signaltender-mcp toolsInspect
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