Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

signaltender-mcp

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

Generate GovCon Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), PRS Table & PWS SLA/KPI Matrix

generate_quality_assurance_qasp
Read-onlyIdempotent

Transform Performance Work Statement (PWS), Statement of Work (SOW), or Statement of Objectives (SOO) deliverables into a FAR Subpart 37.6 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) package containing a 0-100 QASP Readiness Score, an executive surveillance summary, a Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) Table (with PWS section reference, performance objective, measurable KPI standard, Acceptable Quality Level [AQL], FAR 46.4 surveillance method, monitoring frequency, positive/negative incentive or invoice deduction formula, and assigned COR/QA role), automated SLA/KPI telemetry metrics, a closed-loop Non-Conformance & Cure Notice Corrective Action Report (CAR) workflow with FAR 52.246 inspection citations, and a ready-to-submit QASP/QCP proposal narrative. This is a read-only, stateless, non-destructive quality engineering and proposal generator (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; pws_or_sow_deliverables_text accepts 30 to 75,000 characters, while contract_type_and_incentive_structure and surveillance_rigor_and_mission_criticality calibrate AQL thresholds and incentive/deduction mechanics across FFP, T&M, CPAF, CPIF, and Hybrid IDIQ task orders). Use this tool when building a FAR 37.6 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) matrix, or Contractor Quality Control Plan (QCP) with AQLs and SLA deduction formulas; use generate_compliance_matrix instead to shred general Section C/L/M shall/must requirements into a proposal outline, or generate_rfp_response to draft general Technical Approach prose.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_agencyNoOptional issuing agency or contracting office.Department of Defense (DoD) / Federal & State Agency
pws_or_sow_deliverables_textYesRaw Performance Work Statement (PWS), Statement of Work (SOW), or Statement of Objectives (SOO) tasks, service levels, and deliverable requirements (30 to 75,000 characters).
solicitation_or_contract_numberNoOptional solicitation or contract number for QASP traceability.SOL-2026-QASP-001
contract_type_and_incentive_structureNoContract type and fee structure ('Firm_Fixed_Price_FFP', 'Time_and_Materials_TM', 'Cost_Plus_Award_Fee_CPAF', 'Cost_Plus_Incentive_Fee_CPIF', or 'Hybrid_IDIQ_Task_Order').Firm_Fixed_Price_FFP
surveillance_rigor_and_mission_criticalityNoMission criticality profile ('Mission_Critical_24x7_Zero_Trust', 'Standard_Enterprise_IT_SLA', or 'R_and_D_Agile_DevSecOps').Mission_Critical_24x7_Zero_Trust

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoExecution status ('success').
qasp_readiness_scoreNo0-100 score quantifying the measurability, FAR Subpart 37.6 compliance, and audit defensibility of the generated QASP and PRS matrix.
sla_and_kpi_telemetry_metricsNoAutomated SLA and KPI telemetry metrics with target thresholds, measurement windows, data sources, and breach escalation triggers.
executive_surveillance_summaryNoExecutive summary of the Performance-Based Acquisition (FAR 37.6) surveillance strategy, ISO 9001 / CMMI Level 3 quality governance, and COR partnership model.
ready_to_submit_qasp_narrativeNoComplete, paste-ready Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) & Quality Control Plan (QCP) proposal volume narrative in Markdown.
non_conformance_and_cure_notice_workflowNoClosed-loop Non-Conformance, Corrective Action Report (CAR), Root Cause Analysis (RCA), Corrective Action Plan (CAP), and FAR 52.246 inspection workflow.
performance_requirements_summary_prs_tableNoStructured FAR Subpart 37.6 Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) matrix mapping PWS sections to objectives, standards, AQLs, surveillance methods, and incentive/deduction formulas.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / contract_type_and_incentive_structure / description
      Previous value: -"Contract type and incentive structure ('Firm_Fixed_Price_FFP' [default], 'Time_and_Materials_TM', 'Cost_Plus_Award_Fee_CPAF', 'Cost_Plus_Incentive_Fee_CPIF', or 'Hybrid_IDIQ_Task_Order') used to calibrate FAR 52.246 inspection clauses and AQL incentive/deduction formulas."New value: +"Contract type and fee structure ('Firm_Fixed_Price_FFP', 'Time_and_Materials_TM', 'Cost_Plus_Award_Fee_CPAF', 'Cost_Plus_Incentive_Fee_CPIF', or 'Hybrid_IDIQ_Task_Order')."
    • removedInput schema / properties / contract_type_and_incentive_structure / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "Firm_Fixed_Price_FFP",
-  "Time_and_Materials_TM",
-  "Cost_Plus_Award_Fee_CPAF",
-  "Cost_Plus_Incentive_Fee_CPIF",
-  "Hybrid_IDIQ_Task_Order"
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / solicitation_or_contract_number
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "SOL-2026-QASP-001",
+  "description": "Optional solicitation or contract number for QASP traceability.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / surveillance_rigor_and_mission_criticality / description
      Previous value: -"Mission criticality and surveillance rigor profile ('Mission_Critical_24x7_Zero_Trust' [default], 'Standard_Enterprise_IT_SLA', or 'R_and_D_Agile_DevSecOps')."New value: +"Mission criticality profile ('Mission_Critical_24x7_Zero_Trust', 'Standard_Enterprise_IT_SLA', or 'R_and_D_Agile_DevSecOps')."
    • removedInput schema / properties / surveillance_rigor_and_mission_criticality / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "Mission_Critical_24x7_Zero_Trust",
-  "Standard_Enterprise_IT_SLA",
-  "R_and_D_Agile_DevSecOps"
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_agency
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "Department of Defense (DoD) / Federal & State Agency",
+  "description": "Optional issuing agency or contracting office.",
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / executive_surveillance_summary / description
      Previous value: -"Executive summary of the FAR 37.6 surveillance strategy, ISO 9001 / CMMI Level 3 quality governance, and COR partnership model."New value: +"Executive summary of the Performance-Based Acquisition (FAR 37.6) surveillance strategy, ISO 9001 / CMMI Level 3 quality governance, and COR partnership model."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / performance_requirements_summary_prs_table / description
      Previous value: -"Structured FAR Subpart 37.6 Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) rows with objectives, KPI standards, AQLs, surveillance methods, and incentive/deduction formulas."New value: +"Structured FAR Subpart 37.6 Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) matrix mapping PWS sections to objectives, standards, AQLs, surveillance methods, and incentive/deduction formulas."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / qasp_readiness_score / description
      Previous value: -"0-100 score quantifying the measurability, FAR Subpart 37.6 compliance, and audit defensibility of the QASP and PRS matrix."New value: +"0-100 score quantifying the measurability, FAR Subpart 37.6 compliance, and audit defensibility of the generated QASP and PRS matrix."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, yet the description restates 'read-only, stateless, non-destructive', which is largely redundant. What it genuinely adds is the authentication requirement (X-RapidAPI-Key) and the input-size acceptance window, neither of which appears in annotations or parameter docs — useful call-time context. The long output-artifact enumeration, however, duplicates the output schema rather than adding behavioral insight.

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?

It is front-loaded correctly, opening with the transformation verb and source artifacts. However, the mid-section parenthetical enumerating every PRS column ('PWS section reference, performance objective, measurable KPI standard, Acceptable Quality Level [AQL], FAR 46.4 surveillance method, monitoring frequency ... assigned COR/QA role') is a wall of list items that restates the output schema and dilutes the routing guidance that matters most.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a heavy generator, the agent needs to know inputs accepted, auth, and what it gets back; the description covers source artifacts, optional context fields, and the headline outputs, while an output schema exists so return-value detail needn't be spelled out. The main gap is that the scoring rubric and CAR workflow phases are named but not qualified in any way that would change invocation behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all five parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description goes past that by explaining the causal effect of the two calibration parameters — contract type calibrates AQL thresholds and incentive/deduction mechanics across FFP/T&M/CPAF/CPIF/Hybrid IDIQ, and surveillance rigor sets the criticality profile — which tells an agent how parameter choice changes output, not just what values are legal.

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 states a specific verb (Transform ... into) and a concrete set of named artifacts: a FAR Subpart 37.6 QASP package, a 0-100 readiness score, a PRS Table, SLA/KPI telemetry, a CAR workflow, and a proposal narrative. It explicitly distinguishes itself from generate_compliance_matrix and generate_rfp_response, so an agent can route between them without opening a 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use this tool when building a FAR 37.6 QASP, PRS matrix, or QCP with AQLs and SLA deduction formulas') plus named alternatives with the condition that selects each — generate_compliance_matrix for Section C/L/M 'shall'/'must' shredding and generate_rfp_response for Technical Approach prose. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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