get_intake_questionsThe questions Pactlio asks to draft a specific contract type — use these to collect the information needed before calling start_contract_draft. Returns fields, types, options, and validation rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdiction | No | Optional jurisdiction filter, e.g. "california" | |
| contract_type | Yes | Contract type id from list_contract_types, e.g. "nda_mutual", "contractor_agreement" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns fields, types, options, and validation rules, which gives insight into the output structure. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, though for a question retrieval tool these are likely minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds essential context about usage and return content efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, its place in a workflow, and the nature of the returned data, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the high-level context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves intake questions for a specific contract type, explicitly links it to the drafting workflow by mentioning use before start_contract_draft, and distinguishes it from siblings like list_contract_types and start_contract_draft.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('before calling start_contract_draft') and implies its role in collecting prerequisite information. It does not provide exclusions or alternative tools, but the context makes usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing existing contracts, checking non-compete enforceability, managing draft lifecycle (questions, start, status, checkout), listing types, and getting jurisdiction requirements. No two tools have overlapping functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., analyze_contract, get_checkout_link, list_contract_types), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 8 tools covering contract analysis, drafting, and legal requirements, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat or deficiency.
The tool set covers listing, intake, drafting, status checking, payment, analysis, and legal requirements. However, after payment there is no tool to retrieve the full contract text programmatically; users must visit a URL, which is a minor gap.