TechFiyr AI-Native Software Agency

submit_project_spec

Submits a finalized software spec or accepted quoteId to create a binding order, generate SOW + payment link/escrow instruction, trigger founder alerts, and return an orderId + accessToken.

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": {
      "clientEmail": "<clientEmail>",
      "projectTitle": "<projectTitle>",
      "scopeSummary": "<scopeSummary>"
    },
    "name": "submit_project_spec"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`quoteId`	No	Optional quoteId from request_quote.
`clientDid`	No
`techStack`	No
`callbackUrl`	No	Optional HTTPS webhook URL for delivery updates.
`clientEmail`	Yes	Client principal email for SOW, payment, and GitHub transfer.
`crudEntities`	No
`deliveryDays`	No	Delivery SLA in days (7 or 14).
`projectTitle`	Yes
`scopeSummary`	Yes	Detailed functional and technical scope.
`clientAgentId`	No
`mobileScreens`	No
`agreedPriceUSD`	No	Proposed/agreed USD amount (must pass floor guardrails).
`integrationsCount`	No
`paymentPreference`	No
`requiresCustomAiTraining`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is committing ('binding order'), enumerates side effects (SOW generation, payment link/escrow instruction, founder alerts), and names the returned orderId + accessToken. It omits reversibility/idempotency and any auth or identity requirements, which matters for a binding mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then lists consequences and outputs — no filler. The comma-chained side-effect list is dense but earns each clause.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 15 parameters and no output schema, explaining the returned orderId + accessToken is valuable and the side-effect list is unusually complete. Still missing for a binding, money-moving operation: which three params are required, how accessToken should be handled, and what happens on guardrail failure.

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 only 40% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It only clarifies the quoteId-vs-spec input path and the return values; fields like paymentPreference, deliveryDays, requiresCustomAiTraining, and the price floor guardrail get no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Submits a finalized software spec or accepted quoteId') plus the concrete outcome ('create a binding order'). The word 'finalized' and 'accepted quoteId' implicitly separate it from request_quote and negotiate_terms, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implies the right moment to call it (after a spec is finalized or a quote accepted), which is useful ordering context. It never states when not to use it, what prerequisites must exist (e.g., a prior request_quote), or names an alternative for callers still in negotiation.

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

All TechFiyr AI-Native Software Agency tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.