Skip to main content
Glama

elc-partnership-builder

by io.engineeringleaders

Compose the best package for an exact budget

fit_to_budget
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when the visitor names a NUMBER rather than a band — 'we have 8,000 approved', 'can we do this for five thousand'. Returns a deterministic best-value composition under that ceiling: what fits, what was left out AND why, how much budget is unspent, and what the cheapest excluded item costs. Foundation items are kept first, then the remaining items cheapest-first so the budget buys as much as possible. Priced against the AI-channel figure by default, since that is what they would actually pay. Never hand-pick a basket yourself when a budget is stated — this tool is the authoritative composition, the same way customize_package is the authoritative total.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
budgetYesThe visitor's ceiling in EUR, as a number (8000, not '8K')
againstNoPrice the budget against the AI-channel figure (default) or the list price
contextYesExplain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
must_haveNoOptional: item ids the visitor explicitly asked for; kept first if they fit
preset_idYesThe package to trim to budget (from match_package)

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with annotations covering readOnly and idempotent, the description adds rich behavioral detail: foundation items kept first, remaining items chosen cheapest-first, default AI-channel pricing, and exact response contents including unspent budget and cheapest excluded item. This goes far beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: trigger, return value, selection algorithm, pricing basis, and authority are all covered in dense, well-ordered prose. The most important usage condition is front-loaded with concrete examples.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by clearly stating what the response contains: what fits, what was left out and why, unspent budget, and cost of the cheapest excluded item. Combined with full parameter schema coverage, no critical call-time decision is left unexplained.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: budget is a ceiling, must-have items are kept first if they fit, and the 'against' parameter defaults to the AI-channel figure. This is useful supplemental semantics without needing to re-document every parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource: composing the best package for an exact numeric budget, returning a deterministic best-value composition under a ceiling. It also differentiates itself from customize_package by framing it as the authoritative composition tool versus the authoritative total.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The trigger is explicit: use when the visitor names a NUMBER rather than a band, with concrete examples ('8,000 approved', 'five thousand'). It also gives a clear when-not: never hand-pick a basket when a budget is stated, making this tool the authoritative composition.

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

All elc-partnership-builder 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct funnel stages: qualify, match, customize, fit to budget, timeline, business case, offer, and booking. The only mild ambiguities are between match_package and fit_to_budget (both compose packages from budget input) and between request_offer and book_intro_call (both are conversion endpoints), though the descriptions do draw clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All nine tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case convention (get_partnership_options, customize_package, build_business_case, request_offer). get_more_tools is semantically a meta-tool, but it still follows the naming pattern, so there is no stylistic inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

Nine tools is a well-scoped size for a guided sales-funnel server, and each domain tool corresponds to a meaningful workflow step. get_more_tools is a generic meta-tool that doesn't fully earn its place, which keeps this from a perfect score.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full partnership lifecycle from qualification and package matching through customization, budgeting, timeline design, business-case generation, and final offer/booking. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit package-catalog listing tool outside the matching flow and no direct handling of the individual-mentor path, but these are workaroundable or out of scope.

Resources