PreShiftIQ

My vendor scorecard status

my_scorecard_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

For the signed-in vendor: the scorecard's status and completion, and its lead counts (pending, accepted, declined, expiring soon). With match_id, the contact details of the client (the evaluating company) for that lead, and the client's unit and company profile, present only once the lead is accepted. On a client account the summary says so; a client's matches are under my_assessment_status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`match_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`leads`	Yes
`client`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`scorecard`	Yes
`buyer_company`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / scorecard / properties / vertical / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "tms",
-  "dock-scheduling",
-  "eld",
-  "carrier-vetting",
-  "fleet-management"
-]New value: +[
+  "tms",
+  "dock-scheduling",
+  "eld",
+  "carrier-vetting",
+  "fleet-management",
+  "supply-chain-procurement",
+  "yard-management"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / boundary_statement
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "scorecard",
-  "leads",
-  "client",
-  "buyer_company",
-  "summary",
-  "boundary_statement"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "scorecard",
+  "leads",
+  "client",
+  "buyer_company",
+  "summary"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / buyer_company

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "company_profile": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "label": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number",
+              "array"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "label",
+          "value"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "unit": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "kind": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "name",
+        "kind"
+      ],
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "unit",
+    "company_profile"
+  ],
+  "type": [
+    "object",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "scorecard",
-  "leads",
-  "client",
-  "summary",
-  "boundary_statement"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "scorecard",
+  "leads",
+  "client",
+  "buyer_company",
+  "summary",
+  "boundary_statement"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 7, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / boundary_statement
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "scorecard",
-  "leads",
-  "client",
-  "summary"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "scorecard",
+  "leads",
+  "client",
+  "summary",
+  "boundary_statement"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / summary
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "scorecard",
-  "leads",
-  "client"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "scorecard",
+  "leads",
+  "client",
+  "summary"
+]

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the conditional disclosure that client contact/company details are exposed only after a lead is accepted, and account-type-dependent output. It stops short of mentioning auth scopes or rate limits, but the gating rule is the significant behavior an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary vendor summary before the conditional match_id behavior and the client-account caveat. Dense but every clause carries distinct information; only minor tightening is possible.

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 structure need not be restated. The description covers the vendor vs client account split, the meaning of the optional match_id, and the acceptance gate — everything needed to invoke it correctly for a single-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry match_id's meaning, and it does: supplying match_id switches the result to the client contact details and company profile for that lead, subject to the accepted-lead gate. It could still clarify format/validation, but the semantic role of the parameter is clear.

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?

The description names the exact audience ('the signed-in vendor') and the resource returned (scorecard status/completion plus lead counts broken out as pending, accepted, declined, expiring soon). It also explicitly demarcates the sibling tool my_assessment_status for client accounts, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

It states the condition for the optional parameter ('with match_id, the contact details...') and the gating rule ('present only once the lead is accepted'). It also gives explicit alternative routing: on a client account a client's matches are under my_assessment_status.

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

All PreShiftIQ 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?