Skip to main content
Glama

mu

by com.wearmu

Draft an RFQ to a factory (your account; does not send)

mu_rfq_create

Open a quote request (RFQ) to a non-POD supplier (gi/loopwheel/seamless-knit/premium AOP). Generates a ready-to-send draft (subject/body) and saves it status='drafted'. Does NOT send — outbound mail/PO is a human gate. Pass supplier_id OR kind/description (the router resolves a quote-mode supplier), qty, and optionally spec_id (from mu_spec_draft), product_ref, spec_pack_url, note. RFQs are scoped to your account (admin sees all).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qtyNoQuantity (default 1).
kindNoProduct kind (e.g. gi/seamless_knit).
noteNo
spec_idNoSpec id from mu_spec_draft to attach.
descriptionNoFree text to infer kind when kind/supplier omitted.
product_refNoReference SKU or /make ref.
supplier_idNoSupplier id (e.g. isami_gi/heritage_loopwheel/shima_seamless/contrado_uk). Omit to resolve from kind/description.
spec_pack_urlNoURL of a techpack/mockup pack for the supplier.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the draft is saved as 'drafted', scoped to user's account, and that the router resolves supplier. Lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or return value.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by key behavior, then parameter summary. No redundancy or 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?

Covers core functionality, parameter usage, and scope. Lacks explanation of return value or error cases, but adequate for a creation tool with good schema 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 coverage is 88%, and description adds context beyond schema: explains that supplier_id OR kind/description can be used (router resolves), and that spec_id is from mu_spec_draft. Adds meaningful guidance for parameter selection.

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 states it drafts an RFQ without sending, using verbs like 'Open a quote request' and 'Generates a ready-to-send draft'. It distinguishes from siblings like mu_rfq_list (listing) and mu_rfq_record (recording) by focusing on creation.

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?

Explicitly states the tool does not send, indicating when to follow up with outbound mail/PO. Provides guidance on using supplier_id or kind/description to resolve supplier. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from mu_quote or other related tools.

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

All mu toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose; no two tools appear to do the same thing. Even closely related tools (e.g., mu_quote vs mu_rfq_create, mu_preview_mockup vs mu_create_product) are differentiated by read-only vs. action, or draft vs. send.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with the mu_ prefix, and follow a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. Groups like mu_gi_*, mu_ship_*, mu_rfq_* maintain internal consistency. No arbitrary or ambiguous names.

Tool Count4/5

The tool count of 28 is on the higher side but appropriate for the breadth of functionality (registration, product lifecycle, manufacturing, shipping, sales, admin). It's well within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows comprehensively: registration, product CRUD (with create, update, retire), manufacturing quotes (informational and RFQ with spec drafting), shipping (CSV, tracking, status updates), sales data, and gi-specific management. Minor gaps include lack of store update/delete and product search, but these are not critical for the main use cases.

Resources