TBG — The Brett Group

Request a contractor match

submit_project_request

Ask TBG to match a homeowner with one licensed partner contractor for a remodel, addition, basement, deck/exterior or new custom home in Annapolis / Anne Arundel County, MD. Free to the homeowner. Creates a request in TBG's intake system; it is accepted only with user_consented=true, meaning the person has agreed to TBG's consent text (returned by list_project_options). TBG then contacts the person to confirm.

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": {
      "project_type": "<project_type>",
      "zip": "<zip>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "user_consented": "<user_consented>"
    },
    "name": "submit_project_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	Yes	5-digit ZIP of the property.
`name`	Yes	Full name of the person (not the assistant).
`email`	No	Email address (optional but recommended).
`phone`	Yes	10-digit US phone number.
`scope`	No	Scope option, e.g. "Full remodel".
`budget`	No
`details`	No	Short project description in the person's words (max 2000 chars).
`timeline`	No
`project_type`	Yes	Service slug from list_project_options.
`assistant_name`	No	Name of the AI assistant or app submitting, e.g. "Claude", "ChatGPT", "Gemini".
`user_consented`	Yes	Set to true ONLY if you showed the person this exact consent text and they explicitly agreed: "I agree that TBG may share my details with one licensed partner who may contact me by phone, text or email about this request. Consent is not a condition of any purchase. Message and data rates may apply."

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/open-world profile; the description adds real behavioral context — a request is written into TBG's intake system, is gated on explicit user consent, and TBG will then contact the person. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., out-of-area rejection) or response shape, but it goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every sentence carries required information (eligibility, gating, downstream outcome). The middle sentence is slightly dense with the consent mechanic, but there is no filler.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it: the consent precondition, the geographic scope, that it is free, and what happens after submission. Required-field and enum details are left to the schema, which is acceptable given the 82% coverage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is high (82%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: user_consented is tied to TBG's consent text returned by list_project_options, and project_type is framed as a slug from that same tool. This cross-tool provenance is genuinely useful beyond the field descriptions.

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 and resource ('Ask TBG to match a homeowner with one licensed partner contractor') plus the covered project categories and geography. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like apply_to_network, submit_lending_inquiry, and contact_tbg without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context: it is free to the homeowner and only accepted with user_consented=true, and it points to list_project_options as the source of the consent text. It does not explicitly say when a sibling (e.g., apply_to_network or submit_lending_inquiry) should be chosen instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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?