signaltender-mcp

Draft Shipley Proposal Section & Vendor Clarification Q&A

generate_rfp_response

Read-onlyIdempotent

Draft an evaluator-ready Shipley proposal narrative (complete with Win Themes, Feature-Benefit-Proof blocks, and Risk Mitigations) AND a list of strategic Contracting Officer Clarification Q&A questions from an RFP section and company capabilities. This is a read-only, stateless composite generation call that always returns both the drafted narrative and the clarification questions in a single JSON payload (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; target_section_type selects the proposal section format, and tone_and_methodology customizes the writing style). Use this tool when writing Technical Approach, Executive Summary, or Management Plan prose; use generate_compliance_matrix instead to build a requirement checklist/outline first, or generate_cpars_past_performance for structured Volume III CPARS contract citations.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rfp_section_text`	Yes	Verbatim RFP Section C/PWS technical requirements, Section L instructions, or Section M evaluation criteria that the drafted proposal section must satisfy.
`target_section_type`	No	Type of proposal section to draft: 'technical_approach', 'executive_summary', 'management_and_staffing_plan', 'past_performance_narrative', or 'transition_and_quality_control'.	technical_approach
`tone_and_methodology`	No	Editorial voice and methodology instruction applied to the prose draft (defaults to 'Shipley Proposal Methodology (Active Voice, Evaluator-First, Feature-Benefit-Proof)').	Shipley Proposal Methodology (Active Voice, Evaluator-First, Feature-Benefit-Proof)
`company_context_and_capabilities`	Yes	Bidder's technical architecture, past performance metrics, SLAs, certifications, and competitive discriminators to weave into the narrative.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`section_title`	No	Evaluator-focused title for the drafted proposal section.
`drafted_subsections`	No	Complete, multi-subsection Shipley proposal draft ready to paste into Word or proposal automation software.
`estimated_word_count`	No	Total word count of the drafted narrative across all subsections.
`compliance_coverage_score`	No	Percentage (0-100) of input RFP requirements explicitly addressed in the drafted response.
`executive_theme_statement`	No	Overarching Shipley win-theme thesis statement for the entire proposal section.
`red_team_evaluator_critique`	No	Internal Red Team review note highlighting strengths of the draft and any remaining proof-point placeholders to verify before final submission.
`feature_benefit_proof_matrix`	No	Structured Feature-Benefit-Proof & competitive ghosting table for evaluator skimming.
`strategic_clarification_questions`	No	Formal Contracting Officer (KO) Q&A questions designed to neutralize competitor-wired specs and clarify scope risks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed14 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / target_section_type / description

Previous value: -"Target proposal section structure: 'technical_approach' (default, solution architecture & requirement execution), 'executive_summary' (vision & discriminators), 'management_and_staffing_plan' (governance, transition & QA), or 'past_performance_narrative' (prose summary)."New value: +"Type of proposal section to draft: 'technical_approach', 'executive_summary', 'management_and_staffing_plan', 'past_performance_narrative', or 'transition_and_quality_control'."

changedInput schema / properties / target_section_type / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "technical_approach",
-  "executive_summary",
-  "management_and_staffing_plan",
-  "past_performance_narrative"
-]New value: +[
+  "technical_approach",
+  "executive_summary",
+  "management_and_staffing_plan",
+  "past_performance_narrative",
+  "transition_and_quality_control"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / tone_and_methodology / maxLength
```
Added value: +100000
```
addedInput schema / properties / tone_and_methodology / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

addedOutput schema / properties / compliance_coverage_score

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Percentage (0-100) of input RFP requirements explicitly addressed in the drafted response.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / drafted_narrative_markdown

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Full Shipley-formatted proposal section prose in Markdown.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / drafted_subsections

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Complete, multi-subsection Shipley proposal draft ready to paste into Word or proposal automation software.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / estimated_word_count

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Total word count of the drafted narrative across all subsections.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / executive_theme_statement

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Overarching Shipley win-theme thesis statement for the entire proposal section.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / feature_benefit_proof_matrix

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Structured Feature-Benefit-Proof & competitive ghosting table for evaluator skimming.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / red_team_evaluator_critique

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Internal Red Team review note highlighting strengths of the draft and any remaining proof-point placeholders to verify before final submission.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / section_title / description

Previous value: -"Compliance-mapped heading for the drafted proposal section."New value: +"Evaluator-focused title for the drafted proposal section."

changedOutput schema / properties / strategic_clarification_questions / description

Previous value: -"Strategic vendor Q&A questions to submit to the Contracting Officer to expose ambiguous or competitor-wired specs."New value: +"Formal Contracting Officer (KO) Q&A questions designed to neutralize competitor-wired specs and clarify scope risks."

removedOutput schema / properties / win_themes_and_discriminators

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Key win themes and ghosting points embedded in the draft.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

Changed9 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / company_context_and_capabilities / description

Previous value: -"Bidder's technical capabilities, past performance metrics, and differentiators."New value: +"Bidder's technical architecture, past performance metrics, SLAs, certifications, and competitive discriminators to weave into the narrative."

addedInput schema / properties / company_context_and_capabilities / maxLength
```
Added value: +80000
```
addedInput schema / properties / company_context_and_capabilities / minLength
```
Added value: +30
```

changedInput schema / properties / rfp_section_text / description

Previous value: -"RFP Section C/L/M requirements to respond to."New value: +"Verbatim RFP Section C/PWS technical requirements, Section L instructions, or Section M evaluation criteria that the drafted proposal section must satisfy."

addedInput schema / properties / rfp_section_text / maxLength
```
Added value: +80000
```
addedInput schema / properties / rfp_section_text / minLength
```
Added value: +30
```

addedInput schema / properties / target_section_type / description

Added value: +"Target proposal section structure: 'technical_approach' (default, solution architecture & requirement execution), 'executive_summary' (vision & discriminators), 'management_and_staffing_plan' (governance, transition & QA), or 'past_performance_narrative' (prose summary)."

addedInput schema / properties / tone_and_methodology / description

Added value: +"Editorial voice and methodology instruction applied to the prose draft (defaults to 'Shipley Proposal Methodology (Active Voice, Evaluator-First, Feature-Benefit-Proof)')."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "drafted_narrative_markdown": {
+      "description": "Full Shipley-formatted proposal section prose in Markdown.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "section_title": {
+      "description": "Compliance-mapped heading for the drafted proposal section.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "strategic_clarification_questions": {
+      "description": "Strategic vendor Q&A questions to submit to the Contracting Officer to expose ambiguous or competitor-wired specs.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "win_themes_and_discriminators": {
+      "description": "Key win themes and ghosting points embedded in the draft.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the call is a stateless composite that ALWAYS returns both artifacts in one JSON payload, and it requires an X-RapidAPI-Key header — an auth prerequisite an agent must arrange. It stops short of noting latency, payload size, or output length limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core action and dual output, then the behavioral constraints, then the sibling routing — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and caps-heavy, and the second sentence packs auth, output, and parameter semantics together, which slightly impedes scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and the description still flags that both artifacts come back together. With 100% schema coverage, all four annotations, and sibling routing spelled out, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description's notes ("target_section_type selects the proposal section format", "tone_and_methodology customizes the writing style") largely restate the schema descriptions. It adds the useful framing that the two required text inputs must satisfy vs. inform the draft, but no syntax, sizing, or override guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Draft") against a specific resource (a Shipley proposal narrative plus Contracting Officer clarification Q&A) and names the exact artifacts produced (Win Themes, Feature-Benefit-Proof blocks, Risk Mitigations). An agent can distinguish it from generate_compliance_matrix or generate_cpars_past_performance without opening any 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 states when to use it ("writing Technical Approach, Executive Summary, or Management Plan prose") and names two concrete alternatives with their distinct purposes: generate_compliance_matrix for a requirement checklist first, and generate_cpars_past_performance for Volume III CPARS citations. Both routing directions are covered, not just exclusions.

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?