Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChangeOrder

by dev.workers.dailydrop-jc.changeorder
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate a change order

generate_change_order

Flag whether a client request is in scope, out of scope, or unclear, estimate a price, and draft a polite change-order reply. Not legal advice. Reuses ChangeOrder's deterministic keyword classifier (not an LLM).

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": {
      "scope": "<scope>",
      "request": "<request>",
      "rate": "<rate>"
    },
    "name": "generate_change_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rateYesHourly rate in USD.
rushNoIf true, apply a 50% rush surcharge.
hoursNoEstimated hours for the extra work. Defaults to 4.
scopeYesThe signed scope of work, one item per line or semicolon-separated.
clientNoClient name for the greeting. Optional.
requestYesThe client's new request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it leaves the main risk unaddressed: a tool named generate_change_order could create and persist a record, but the text only says it drafts a reply. It also omits rate limits, auth needs, and the output format. The note that it reuses a deterministic keyword classifier rather than an LLM is a genuinely useful behavioral trait, which is why this is not a 1.

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 short sentences, with the core actions front-loaded and no filler. The disclaimer and the classifier note each carry weight. Minor cost: the middle sentence packs three verbs together, and the sequencing could be tighter.

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?

With six parameters, three of them required, and no output schema, the description should say more about the shape of the result and whether any side effects occur. It does sketch the three outputs, which helps. But it never resolves whether a change order is actually generated and stored, which is the central ambiguity for a tool with this name.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a documented meaning in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is right when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description names three concrete operations: classify a client request as in scope, out of scope, or unclear; estimate a price; and draft a change-order reply. That is a specific verb-plus-resource statement an agent can match to a request. There are no sibling tools, so there is nothing else to tell it apart from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description never says when to reach for this tool rather than handling the request some other way, nor what preconditions must hold. 'Not legal advice' sets a boundary on what the output may be used for, but that is a disclaimer, not usage guidance. An agent has to infer the use case from the verbs alone.

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

All ChangeOrder toolsInspect
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