SupplySlate

submit_sourcing_request

Idempotent

Submit a real non-sensitive B2B sourcing request on behalf of the buyer. SupplySlate routes it to relevant suppliers and returns structured offers later. Requires a buyer API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`notes`	No
`need_by`	No	Requested delivery date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
`category`	Yes	Supply category. Use a precise category even if it is not in the current category list.
`external_id`	No	Buyer-controlled idempotency key for this request.
`fixture_kind`	No	Explicit lineage for integration fixtures; never use synthetic records as market evidence.	real
`ship_to_country`	Yes	Two-letter ISO country code.
`data_classification`	No		commercial
`ship_to_postal_code`	No
`substitutions_allowed`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`matching`	Yes
`sourcing_request`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: the request is supplied to relevant suppliers, the action produces a later decision, and a buyer API key is required. This is useful because the annotations only say the operation is not read-only, not destructive, and appears idempotent; they do not communicate the real-world routing side effect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded. It consists of three short sentences that respectively state the action, the after-effect, and the auth prerequisite. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description provides sufficient top-level context: purpose, routing behavior, asynchronous decision outcome, and API key requirement. Context around idempotency, fixture_kind, or data_classification is not repeated, which is acceptable because those are already present in the schema or annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter-specific guidance. With 10 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, parameters like notes, substitutions_allowed, ship_to_postal_code, part_number, and manufacturer are left without helpful context, and the tool description does not compensate for that gap.

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 clearly identifies the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a real non-sensitive B2B sourcing request on behalf of the buyer.' It also specifies the overall workflow by saying SupplySlate routes it to suppliers and returns a decision later, which differentiates it from sibling tools that list, get, quote, or otherwise manage sourcing data.

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?

The description provides direct context for when to use the tool: for real, buyer-side, non-sensitive sourcing requests, and with a buyer API key. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as submit_supplier_quote or source_project, but the buyer-side action is distinct enough in this toolset.

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

All SupplySlate tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.

Resources

Need Help?