SignalTender B2B, GovCon & LegalTech MCP Server

Diff SF-30 RFP Amendments & Q&A Logs Against Base Solicitation

analyze_rfp_amendment_diff

Read-onlyIdempotent

Diff base RFP/SOW text against subsequent SF-30 Solicitation Amendments, SLED Addenda, and official Government Q&A logs to flag altered shall/must mandates, deadline extensions, page-limit revisions, CLIN pricing changes, de-facto Q&A requirements, and invalidated proposal sections with Shipley redraft language. This is a read-only, stateless change-impact analysis call (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; base_solicitation_text and amendment_or_qa_text accept up to 100,000 characters each, and providing optional current_proposal_outline enables targeted auditing of which specific drafted proposal volumes/pages are invalidated). Use this tool whenever an agency issues an SF-30 amendment, addendum, or Q&A response matrix after initial RFP release; use generate_compliance_matrix instead when shredding an initial base RFP for the first time.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amendment_or_qa_text`	Yes	Subsequent SF-30 Amendment text, state/local SLED Addendum text, or official Contracting Officer Q&A clarification matrix to diff against the base solicitation.
`base_solicitation_text`	Yes	Original base RFP text from Section B (CLINs), Section C/PWS (Statement of Work), Section L (Instructions/Deadlines/Page Limits), or Section M (Evaluation Criteria).
`current_proposal_outline`	No	Optional summary of the bidder's in-progress proposal outline, volume page allocations, or technical baseline used to pinpoint exact sections that must be rewritten.	Volume I: Technical Approach & Architecture; Volume II: Management & Key Personnel Staffing; Volume III: Past Performance; Volume IV: CLIN Pricing & Basis of Estimate (BOE)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amendment_impact_summary`	No	Executive roll-up of amendment severity, rework risk score, deadline shifts, and mandatory SF-30 acknowledgment rules.
`qa_clarification_rulings`	No	Structured breakdown of Government Q&A answers, flagging hidden de-facto requirements and competitive impacts.
`requirement_and_clin_deltas`	No	Ordered list of material requirement, CLIN pricing, page limit, evaluation criteria, and deadline changes.
`invalidated_proposal_sections`	No	Bidder proposal sections invalidated by the amendment, paired with ready-to-paste replacement narrative.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / current_proposal_outline / default

Added value: +"Volume I: Technical Approach & Architecture; Volume II: Management & Key Personnel Staffing; Volume III: Past Performance; Volume IV: CLIN Pricing & Basis of Estimate (BOE)"

addedInput schema / properties / current_proposal_outline / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

addedOutput schema / properties / amendment_impact_summary

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Executive roll-up of amendment severity, rework risk score, deadline shifts, and mandatory SF-30 acknowledgment rules.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / invalidated_proposal_sections / description

Previous value: -"Affected proposal sections with severity and ready-to-paste Shipley redraft language."New value: +"Bidder proposal sections invalidated by the amendment, paired with ready-to-paste replacement narrative."

removedOutput schema / properties / material_requirement_changes

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Added, modified, or deleted shall/must requirements and de-facto Q&A mandates.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / qa_clarification_rulings

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Structured breakdown of Government Q&A answers, flagging hidden de-facto requirements and competitive impacts.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / requirement_and_clin_deltas

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Ordered list of material requirement, CLIN pricing, page limit, evaluation criteria, and deadline changes.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / schedule_and_page_limit_changes

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Detected due-date extensions, page-limit updates, and administrative modifications.",
-  "type": "object"
-}

Changed9 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / amendment_or_qa_text / description

Previous value: -"Raw text from one or more SF-30 Solicitation Amendments, SLED Addenda, or official Government Q&A clarification matrices."New value: +"Subsequent SF-30 Amendment text, state/local SLED Addendum text, or official Contracting Officer Q&A clarification matrix to diff against the base solicitation."

addedInput schema / properties / amendment_or_qa_text / maxLength
```
Added value: +100000
```
addedInput schema / properties / amendment_or_qa_text / minLength
```
Added value: +40
```

changedInput schema / properties / base_solicitation_text / description

Previous value: -"Raw text from the base RFP, Statement of Work (Section C), Instructions (Section L), Pricing Schedule (Section B), or Evaluation Criteria (Section M)."New value: +"Original base RFP text from Section B (CLINs), Section C/PWS (Statement of Work), Section L (Instructions/Deadlines/Page Limits), or Section M (Evaluation Criteria)."

addedInput schema / properties / base_solicitation_text / maxLength
```
Added value: +100000
```
addedInput schema / properties / base_solicitation_text / minLength
```
Added value: +40
```

changedInput schema / properties / current_proposal_outline / description

Previous value: -"Optional summary of the bidder's existing proposal outline, page budget, or technical baseline to audit for invalidated sections."New value: +"Optional summary of the bidder's in-progress proposal outline, volume page allocations, or technical baseline used to pinpoint exact sections that must be rewritten."

addedInput schema / properties / current_proposal_outline / maxLength
```
Added value: +50000
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "invalidated_proposal_sections": {
+      "description": "Affected proposal sections with severity and ready-to-paste Shipley redraft language.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "material_requirement_changes": {
+      "description": "Added, modified, or deleted shall/must requirements and de-facto Q&A mandates.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "schedule_and_page_limit_changes": {
+      "description": "Detected due-date extensions, page-limit updates, and administrative modifications.",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description partly repeats them ('read-only, stateless'). It adds genuinely new context: an X-RapidAPI-Key auth requirement, per-input character ceilings, and the fact that supplying `current_proposal_outline` switches on targeted volume/page invalidation. That is useful beyond the annotations, though output behavior is left to the output schema.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core diff operation, then auth/limits, then routing guidance. Some jargon ('Shipley redraft language') and a parenthetical that compresses a lot of detail, but no sentence is throwaway.

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?

Given a rich output schema, three fully documented parameters, and strong annotations, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical pieces: when to call, which sibling to prefer, and the auth requirement. Little an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only echoes what the schema already states (100,000-char limits, optional outline) and adds the sole new nuance that the outline enables targeted auditing of drafted volumes/pages. Useful but marginal over the structured fields.

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 (diff) and specific resources (base RFP/SOW vs SF-30 amendments, SLED Addenda, Q&A logs), and enumerates exactly what the diff surfaces (shall/must changes, deadlines, page limits, CLIN pricing). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `generate_compliance_matrix` in the same paragraph.

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?

Explicit trigger condition: 'Use this tool whenever an agency issues an SF-30 amendment, addendum, or Q&A response matrix after initial RFP release.' It also names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'use `generate_compliance_matrix` instead when shredding an initial base RFP for the first time.' Nothing is left to inference.

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

All SignalTender B2B, GovCon & LegalTech MCP Server 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.