OwnYourAgent Agentvoordeur

Prepare an OwnYourAgent request link

prepare_intake_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a link to the OwnYourAgent request form (the agreement sheet (afsprakenkaart) as a form) with the chosen starting phase, topic and, optionally, Ownership Check IDs pre-filled. It contains no personal data and submits nothing: the person opens the link, checks the answers, adds their own contact details and sends it themselves. Use it when the user wants to ask OwnYourAgent for a proposal.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "prepare_intake_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language of the form: nl (default) or en.	nl
`phase`	No	Starting phase: kansenrapport (AI opportunity report), pilot, implementatie (implementation) or beheer (management).
`topic`	No	The work the agent should help with: facturen (invoices and orders), klantvragen (customer questions), telefoon (phone), kennis (internal knowledge), offertes (quotations) or anders (other).
`check_ids`	No	Optional Ownership Check IDs (from get_ownership_check) the user wants OwnYourAgent to review, e.g. ["E-02","E-03"].

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`lang`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`phase`	Yes
`topic`	Yes
`check_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, yet the description adds the behavior that matters most: the tool submits nothing, contains no personal data, and the person must open the link, add contact details and send it themselves. That human-in-the-loop disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, what the tool does not do, and when to use it. The privacy/no-submission clarification is front-loaded before the usage cue, so an agent reading only the opening sentence still understands the safe, non-committal nature.

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 four-optional-parameter link builder with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing. Return values are covered by the output schema, safety by annotations, and the remaining ambiguity (who sends the form, whether data leaves the system) is addressed directly in the description.

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% with enums documenting every allowed value, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates that phase, topic and check_ids are pre-filled and that check_ids is optional, but adds no format hints or examples beyond what the schema provides (the ID example already lives in the schema), and never mentions lang.

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: returns a link to the OwnYourAgent request form with phase, topic and optional Ownership Check IDs pre-filled. It also disambiguates from nearby resources by clarifying the form is the agreement sheet (afsprakenkaart) rendered as a form, which separates it from get_agreement_card_template and get_ownership_check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use it when the user wants to ask OwnYourAgent for a proposal" gives an explicit triggering condition an agent can match against user intent. It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g. when the user only wants to read the template or check their own answers), so it is clear but not complete on alternatives.

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

All OwnYourAgent Agentvoordeur 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?