Portravo Construction Takeoff

Check trade availability and existing credits

preflight_takeoff

Read-onlyIdempotent

Before creating or starting a takeoff, inspect current automatic/team-assisted trades, the exact existing-credit requirement, balance, upload limits, published prices and review link. Supply either project_id or proposed trades, or neither to discover availability. Works before account linking without project_id: trades, credit rule and prices only, with existingCreditsAvailable null and accountLinked false. Published prices: $75 per trade on one project, $149 for the whole job, or plan takeoffs (one per trade, three for the whole job). Does not reserve credits, start work, buy anything or bill overage.

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": "preflight_takeoff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`trades`	No
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`trades`	Yes
`catalog`	Yes
`pricing`	No
`mayStart`	Yes
`accountLinked`	No
`creditsRequired`	Yes
`existingCreditsAvailable`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 31, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / accountLinked
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / existingCreditsAvailable / type
```
Previous value: -"integer"New value: +[
+  "integer",
+  "null"
+]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / pricing
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
AddedOct 21, 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 the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: the returned fields, the degraded pre-linking response shape with existingCreditsAvailable null and accountLinked false, and the guarantee that no credits are reserved or overage billed. That is substantive disclosure well beyond structured metadata.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and its precondition, and every clause carries information (fields returned, call modes, unlinked behavior, price tiers). The enumeration of inspected fields and the pricing sentence are dense, and the pricing detail is somewhat tangential to invocation, but nothing is padding.

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 explanation, and the description still clarifies the special pre-linking return shape. It covers alternatives between parameters, pricing, and negative guarantees, leaving no significant invocation question open for a two-optional-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does add meaning: it explains that project_id and trades are alternatives and that both may be omitted. It does not cover the per-project vs whole-job interaction, the maxItems 9 cap, or the project_id pattern, so some schema constraints remain uninterpreted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation (preflight inspection of trade availability, credit rules, balance, upload limits, prices and review link) and states its timing constraint ('Before creating or starting a takeoff'). Sibling differentiation is handled indirectly via the negative clause 'Does not reserve credits, start work, buy anything', which separates it from run_takeoff, rather than by naming alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to call ('Before creating or starting a takeoff'), how to call it in three modes ('Supply either project_id or proposed trades, or neither to discover availability'), and the precondition case ('Works before account linking without project_id'). It also states what the tool will not do, which is exactly the boundary an agent needs to avoid substituting it for run_takeoff.

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

All Portravo Construction Takeoff 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?