Sapien Solutions

Request an inquiry

request_inquiry

Send us an inquiry. It reaches the people who do the work, by email. Needs a name, an email or a phone, and what they need.

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": "request_inquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`line`	No	The line of work, if known: one of automation, policy-and-training, software-and-integrations, it-and-infrastructure.
`name`	No	Your name, 2 to 80 characters.
`need`	No	What your business does and what is not working, in your own words. No technical brief needed. Anything you already have helps: a process document, a screenshot, the spreadsheet that runs the thing. We will ask for it anyway.
`email`	No	An email address we can reply to. Give an email, a phone, or both.
`phone`	No	A phone number, 7 to 20 digits. Give an email, a phone, or both.
`company`	No	Your company, if any, under 120 characters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`summary`	Yes
`next_step`	Yes
`reference`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / kind

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "For the free one-page read: which one thing we read, one of website, domain, process, systems, decision. Put the thing itself in need.",
-  "enum": [
-    "website",
-    "domain",
-    "process",
-    "systems",
-    "decision"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / line / description

Previous value: -"The line of work, if known: one of ai-and-automation, ai-rollout-and-policy, software-and-integrations, it-and-infrastructure."New value: +"The line of work, if known: one of automation, policy-and-training, software-and-integrations, it-and-infrastructure."

changedInput schema / properties / need / description

Previous value: -"What your business does, what you want to change, and anything you already have on it: a process document, a screenshot, the spreadsheet that runs the thing. We will ask for it anyway."New value: +"What your business does and what is not working, in your own words. No technical brief needed. Anything you already have helps: a process document, a screenshot, the spreadsheet that runs the thing. We will ask for it anyway."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / kind

Added value: +{
+  "description": "For the free one-page read: which one thing we read, one of website, domain, process, systems, decision. Put the thing itself in need.",
+  "enum": [
+    "website",
+    "domain",
+    "process",
+    "systems",
+    "decision"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the delivery channel and the fact that a human team receives it. It omits the things that matter for a side-effecting send: whether submission is irreversible, whether a confirmation or response is expected, and what a successful call returns. Adding 'you will get X back' would have moved this higher.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the requirement, with no filler. The telegraphic phrasing ('what they need') is slightly loose but costs almost nothing.

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 six parameters are flat and fully documented, so the description only needs to establish intent and prerequisites, which it does. For a simple form-submission tool with zero required fields, the remaining gaps (post-submission behavior, confirmation) are minor rather than disqualifying.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all six fields, including the email-or-phone disjunction and the line-of-work enum values. The description's restatement of name/email-or-phone/need adds emphasis but no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and artifact ('Send us an inquiry') plus where it goes ('reaches the people who do the work, by email'), which is enough for an agent to know this is the contact/submission tool. It doesn't name or contrast with the sibling tools (case_studies, company, read_page, service_area), but the read-vs-submit distinction is evident from the wording.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the path for getting in touch or requesting work, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The one genuinely useful line is the minimum requirement set (name, an email or a phone, and the need), which compensates slightly for the absence of routing guidance.

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

All Sapien Solutions 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?