Skip to main content
Glama

Buy, rent or hire a robot service?

buy_rent_or_hire
Read-onlyIdempotent

Total cost of buying a robot vs renting it (lease / robots-as-a-service) vs hiring a service over a period, with break-even months and the cheapest option ("within_10_percent" = too close to call). Defaults come only from sourced price rows hand-tagged buy / rent / service for the job (each with source_url and as_of; pick another with buy_receipt / rent_receipt / service_receipt, or "none"); any number the buyer gives overrides the receipt. Running costs (upkeep, staff hours x wage, setup fee, resale) are the buyer's own and have no default. Same maths as whirrwork.com/tools/buy-rent-or-hire/. Without job, returns jobs_with_receipts. Not a quote, not a forecast. Examples: {"job":"commercial-floor-scrubbing","months":36}; {"job":"crop-spraying-drone","months":24,"qty":300}; {"job":"commercial-floor-scrubbing","months":60,"upkeep":150,"hours":20,"wage":18}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "buy_rent_or_hire"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buyNoPurchase price (overrides the receipt)
endNoWhich end of each published range to use (default low)
jobNoJob (use case) id; omit to list jobs that have tagged receipts
qtyNoService amount per month in the service receipt's unit (hectares, sq ft, visits...)
rentNoRent / RaaS per month (overrides the receipt)
wageNoWage per staff hour
hoursNoStaff hours per month to run it (buy and rent)
setupNoOne-off setup fee when renting
monthsNoPeriod in months (default 36)
resaleNoResale value at the end when bought
upkeepNoUpkeep per month when bought
serviceNoService price per unit (overrides the receipt)
currencyNoCurrency of your own numbers (ISO 4217)
languageNoLanguage for use-case text (machine-translated; English is authoritative). Default en.
buy_receiptNoReceipt index from receipts_available, or "none" to leave this option out
rent_receiptNoReceipt index from receipts_available, or "none" to leave this option out
service_receiptNoReceipt index from receipts_available, or "none" to leave this option out

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobNo
urlYes
toolYes
inputNo
labelNo
issuesNo
methodNo
monthsNo
rankedNo
formulaYes
optionsNobuy / rent / service: totals, per month, source (receipt | yours) and the receipt used
versionNo
cheapestNo
currencyNo
languageNo
warningsNo
break_even_monthsNo
receipts_reviewedNo
within_10_percentNo
jobs_with_receiptsNo
receipts_availableNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses where defaults come from (hand-tagged sourced rows with source_url and as_of), that running costs have no default and are the buyer's own, the override precedence, the 'within_10_percent' ambiguity rule, and the 'not a quote, not a forecast' limitation.

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?

Core purpose and outputs are front-loaded and the three examples are useful, but the run-on parenthetical sentences pack several distinct rules together and take effort to parse for a 17-parameter tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the default-sourcing model, override behavior, no-default running costs, the no-job fallback listing, and the interpretive caveat for near-ties.

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 100%, so the per-parameter definitions are already present; the description still adds value the schema cannot, namely the precedence rule that buyer numbers override receipts and that receipts are only for buy/rent/service rows. The remaining parameters are left to 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?

The first sentence names a specific computation (total cost of buy vs rent vs service over a period) and its outputs (break-even months, cheapest option, 'within_10_percent' tie). It is clearly distinct from sibling estimators like compare_robot_vs_human or estimate_cost, though 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage rules: omit `job` to list jobs with tagged receipts, swap receipts via buy_receipt/rent_receipt/service_receipt or pass "none" to drop an option, and any buyer-supplied number overrides the receipt. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over the sibling comparison/estimate tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources