PreShiftIQ

Request proposals

request_proposals

Destructive

For the signed-in client who owns the assessment: asks to request proposal packages from the vendors you choose in your evaluation. Nothing is sent by this tool: it returns a link to PreShiftIQ's confirm page; once you confirm there, each vendor you chose is notified. Only a vendor that has accepted its match can be asked.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vendor_ids": "<vendor_ids>"
    },
    "name": "request_proposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vendor_ids`	Yes
`assessment_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`errors`	No
`status`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`expires_at`	Yes
`confirm_url`	Yes
`proposals_recorded`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the critical two-step flow: this tool sends nothing, it returns a link to a confirm page, and notification happens only after confirmation there. That materially reframes the destructiveHint=true annotation as a deferred, user-confirmed action rather than an immediate side effect. It does not cover rate limits or what happens to vendors already requested.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the actor and the action, then the no-side-effect clarification, then the eligibility constraint. No filler, though 'asks to request' could be tightened to a single verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and the description explains the return value (a confirm-page link), so return semantics are covered. Preconditions and the confirmation gate are stated. The remaining gap is the optional assessment_id, which an agent must infer.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does by constraining vendor_ids to vendors that accepted their match, but it never explains assessment_id (optional, presumably defaults to the caller's own assessment) or the 1-50 item bound.

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 action and resource ('request proposal packages from the vendors you choose in your evaluation') and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling submit_proposal_package, which flows the other direction. The phrasing 'asks to request' is slightly indirect but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It states the caller must be the signed-in client who owns the assessment and adds a real eligibility rule: 'Only a vendor that has accepted its match can be asked.' It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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.