signaltender-mcp

Score Bid/No-Bid Pwin & Match Capability Statement

match_capability_statement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate an RFP scope against a vendor's Capability Statement and past performance to compute a 0-100 Probability of Win (Pwin) score, a Gate-1 Bid/No-Bid recommendation, a technical/socioeconomic gap analysis, and a tailored executive pitch. This is a read-only, stateless capture scoring call (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; both rfp_text and company_capability_statement are required, while target_pursuit_role weights eligibility rules for 'prime_contractor', 'subcontractor_or_jv', or 'either_prime_or_sub' [default]). Use this tool when conducting Gate-1 capture qualification to decide whether to bid an opportunity; use generate_teaming_strategy instead if you already decided to bid and need a 13 CFR 125.6 (50% Rule) Prime/Sub workshare plan, or match_key_personnel to evaluate individual candidate resumes.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rfp_text`	Yes	Target solicitation scope, mandatory technical qualifications, NAICS/set-aside designation, clearance requirements, and Section M evaluation criteria.
`target_pursuit_role`	No	Preferred pursuit posture to evaluate: 'prime_contractor', 'subcontractor_or_jv', or 'either_prime_or_sub'.	either_prime_or_sub
`company_capability_statement`	Yes	Vendor capability statement including core competencies, socioeconomic certifications (8(a), SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone), facility clearances, and past performance summary.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pwin_score`	No	Estimated Probability of Win (Pwin) score from 0 (disqualified / no fit) to 100 (ideal prime fit).
`score_breakdown`	No	Granular 0-100 scoring across technical fit, past performance, clearances/certifications, and set-aside/vehicle eligibility.
`bid_recommendation`	No	Executive gate decision: STRONG_BID, CONDITIONAL_BID_TEAMING_REQUIRED, HIGH_RISK_STRETCH_BID, or NO_BID.
`key_discriminators`	No	High-impact competitive strengths from the vendor profile to highlight as Shipley win themes.
`solicitation_title`	No	Identified or inferred title and agency of the solicitation.
`recommended_pursuit_role`	No	Optimal pursuit structure (e.g., 'Prime Contractor', 'Prime with Teaming Subcontractor for Top Secret FCL', 'Subcontractor to Large Prime').
`requirement_gap_analysis`	No	Requirement-by-requirement alignment matrix with matched vendor evidence and gap remediation actions.
`hard_disqualifiers_detected`	No	Mandatory knockout blockers detected (e.g., missing Top Secret FCL, ineligible socioeconomic status, missing required contract vehicle).
`tailored_executive_summary_pitch`	No	Ready-to-paste, persuasive Shipley Executive Summary / Sources Sought pitch paragraph tailored to the buyer agency using the vendor's exact past performance.
`teaming_and_subcontracting_strategy`	No	Concrete recommendation on how to structure the capture team, JV, or subcontractor roster to maximize Pwin.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed15 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / target_pursuit_role / description

Previous value: -"Intended pursuit role: 'prime_contractor' enforces strict set-aside and past-performance minimums, 'subcontractor' scores niche workshare fit, and 'either_prime_or_sub' (default) recommends the highest-Pwin path."New value: +"Preferred pursuit posture to evaluate: 'prime_contractor', 'subcontractor_or_jv', or 'either_prime_or_sub'."

changedInput schema / properties / target_pursuit_role / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "prime_contractor",
-  "subcontractor",
-  "either_prime_or_sub"
-]New value: +[
+  "prime_contractor",
+  "subcontractor_or_jv",
+  "either_prime_or_sub"
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / bid_recommendation / description

Previous value: -"Gate-1 recommendation (BID_AS_PRIME, BID_AS_SUB, TEAMING_REQUIRED, NO_BID)."New value: +"Executive gate decision: STRONG_BID, CONDITIONAL_BID_TEAMING_REQUIRED, HIGH_RISK_STRETCH_BID, or NO_BID."

removedOutput schema / properties / capability_gaps

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Unmet RFP requirements or compliance blockers.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / hard_disqualifiers_detected

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Mandatory knockout blockers detected (e.g., missing Top Secret FCL, ineligible socioeconomic status, missing required contract vehicle).",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / key_discriminators

Added value: +{
+  "description": "High-impact competitive strengths from the vendor profile to highlight as Shipley win themes.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / pwin_score / description

Previous value: -"Calculated Probability of Win (Pwin) score from 0 to 100."New value: +"Estimated Probability of Win (Pwin) score from 0 (disqualified / no fit) to 100 (ideal prime fit)."

addedOutput schema / properties / recommended_pursuit_role

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optimal pursuit structure (e.g., 'Prime Contractor', 'Prime with Teaming Subcontractor for Top Secret FCL', 'Subcontractor to Large Prime').",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / requirement_gap_analysis

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Requirement-by-requirement alignment matrix with matched vendor evidence and gap remediation actions.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / score_breakdown

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Granular 0-100 scoring across technical fit, past performance, clearances/certifications, and set-aside/vehicle eligibility.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / solicitation_title

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Identified or inferred title and agency of the solicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / strengths_and_discriminators

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Matched vendor capabilities and competitive discriminators.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / tailored_executive_pitch

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Ready-to-use executive summary pitch aligned to the buyer agency.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / tailored_executive_summary_pitch

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Ready-to-paste, persuasive Shipley Executive Summary / Sources Sought pitch paragraph tailored to the buyer agency using the vendor's exact past performance.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / teaming_and_subcontracting_strategy

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Concrete recommendation on how to structure the capture team, JV, or subcontractor roster to maximize Pwin.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed8 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / company_capability_statement / description

Previous value: -"Vendor capability statement, socioeconomic certs, clearances, and past performance."New value: +"Vendor capability statement including core competencies, socioeconomic certifications (8(a), SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone), facility clearances, and past performance summary."

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

changedInput schema / properties / rfp_text / description

Previous value: -"Solicitation scope, mandatory qualifications, set-aside, and evaluation criteria."New value: +"Target solicitation scope, mandatory technical qualifications, NAICS/set-aside designation, clearance requirements, and Section M evaluation criteria."

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

addedInput schema / properties / target_pursuit_role / description

Added value: +"Intended pursuit role: 'prime_contractor' enforces strict set-aside and past-performance minimums, 'subcontractor' scores niche workshare fit, and 'either_prime_or_sub' (default) recommends the highest-Pwin path."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "bid_recommendation": {
+      "description": "Gate-1 recommendation (BID_AS_PRIME, BID_AS_SUB, TEAMING_REQUIRED, NO_BID).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "capability_gaps": {
+      "description": "Unmet RFP requirements or compliance blockers.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "pwin_score": {
+      "description": "Calculated Probability of Win (Pwin) score from 0 to 100.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "strengths_and_discriminators": {
+      "description": "Matched vendor capabilities and competitive discriminators.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "tailored_executive_pitch": {
+      "description": "Ready-to-use executive summary pitch aligned to the buyer agency.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new operational context — that the call is stateless and requires an X-RapidAPI-Key. It does not discuss rate limits, latency, or cost, which for an external RapidAPI-backed scoring call would be the remaining useful disclosure.

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 purpose and outputs, then constraints, then routing — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The middle parenthetical packs auth, required fields, and the enum default into one dense clause, which is efficient but slightly crowded for 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?

For a three-parameter scoring tool with a full schema, complete parameter docs, and an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, inputs, prerequisites, and alternative routing. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it flags that rfp_text and company_capability_statement are required and explains that target_pursuit_role 'weights eligibility rules' rather than merely filtering. It stops short of describing how the weighting changes the Pwin output.

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 and resource ('Evaluate an RFP scope against a vendor's Capability Statement and past performance') and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: Pwin score, Gate-1 Bid/No-Bid recommendation, gap analysis, and executive pitch. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two named siblings, so an agent can route 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use this tool when conducting Gate-1 capture qualification to decide whether to bid') plus two named exclusions with their selecting conditions: generate_teaming_strategy if already decided to bid and needing a 50% Rule workshare plan, and match_key_personnel for individual resumes. Nothing 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 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?