TBG — The Brett Group

Apply to the TBG partner network

apply_to_network

Submit an application for a contractor, trade, home builder, architect/engineer, lender, agent/broker, property manager or supplier to join the TBG network in Maryland. Accepted only with user_consented=true (the applicant agrees to be contacted about joining).

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": {
      "partner_type": "<partner_type>",
      "contact_name": "<contact_name>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "user_consented": "<user_consented>"
    },
    "name": "apply_to_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes
`notes`	No
`phone`	No
`title`	No
`trades`	No	e.g. Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC, Roofing.
`company`	No
`insured`	No
`team_size`	No
`capital_info`	No	For lenders and capital partners.
`contact_name`	Yes
`license_info`	No	MHIC, trade license or NMLS numbers.
`partner_type`	Yes
`service_areas`	No	e.g. Anne Arundel County, Annapolis (city), Howard County.
`assistant_name`	No	Name of the AI assistant or app submitting, e.g. "Claude", "ChatGPT", "Gemini".
`user_consented`	Yes	True only if the applicant agreed that TBG may contact them about joining the network.
`company_website`	No
`years_in_business`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds the meaningful consent gate and its meaning, but says nothing about duplicate submissions, what happens on rejection, or how the open-world submission is acknowledged.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is submitted and where, with the consent gate placed second. No filler, though it is terse relative to the tool's 17-parameter surface.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 17-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world write with no output schema, the description explains only the consent flag and the applicant categories. An agent gets no guidance on which of the 13 optional fields matter for which partner_type, or what the submission returns.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 35% across 17 parameters. The description implicitly names the partner_type categories and explains user_consented, but leaves company, insured, team_size, years_in_business, phone, title, notes, service_areas, and assistant_name with no explanatory text anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (submit an application) and resource (a partner joining the TBG network) plus geographic scope (Maryland) and the full set of applicant categories. This cleanly separates it from siblings like submit_project_request and submit_lending_inquiry.

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?

It gives one hard precondition (accepted only with user_consented=true) which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to use this versus submit_lending_inquiry (which overlaps with the lender partner_type) or the other submit_* siblings. No exclusions or prerequisite context beyond the consent flag.

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

All TBG — The Brett Group 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?