SignalTender B2B, GovCon & LegalTech MCP Server

Generate Shipley RFP Compliance Matrix & Proposal Outline

generate_compliance_matrix

Read-onlyIdempotent

Shred unstructured RFP Section C (SOW/PWS), Section L (Instructions), and Section M (Evaluation Criteria) text into a numbered shall/must Requirements Traceability Matrix, Section L-to-M cross-reference map, and annotated Proposal Outline with page allocations. This is a read-only, stateless analysis operation (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; raw_text accepts 50 to 100,000 characters, and proposal_methodology selects 'shipley' [default Volume I-IV structure], 'federal_far' [FAR 15.3], or 'standard_b2b' outline conventions). Use this tool when shredding a base RFP into a compliance checklist and proposal outline; use analyze_rfp_amendment_diff instead when comparing an SF-30 amendment against a base RFP, or generate_rfp_response to draft the actual prose narrative for a specific section.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw_text`	Yes	Raw RFP Section C (Statement of Work / PWS), Section L (Instructions to Offerors), and/or Section M (Evaluation Factors) text (50 to 100,000 characters).
`proposal_methodology`	No	Proposal structuring methodology: 'shipley' (Shipley Associates capture standard), 'standard_b2b' (commercial enterprise RFP), or 'federal_far' (strict FAR Section L/M mapping).	shipley

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`proposal_outline`	No	Structured section-by-section proposal outline with mapped requirements, win themes, and page budgets.
`solicitation_title`	No	Inferred or stated title/scope of the RFP or Statement of Work.
`requirements_matrix`	No	Ordered list of shredded RFP requirements mapped to proposal sections and required verification evidence.
`proposal_methodology`	No	Echoed proposal methodology applied ('shipley', 'standard_b2b', or 'federal_far').
`submission_format_rules`	No	Extracted administrative formatting, page limit, font, margin, or submission instructions that could trigger rejection if violated.
`evaluation_criteria_weights`	No	Extracted Section M or commercial evaluation scoring factors and relative weights.
`total_mandatory_shall_count`	No	Total count of mandatory ('MANDATORY_SHALL') requirements identified in the text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / proposal_methodology / description

Previous value: -"Proposal structuring methodology: 'shipley' (default evaluator-first Volume I-IV outline with win themes), 'federal_standard' (strict FAR Part 15 Section L/M mapping), or 'commercial_agile' (B2B solution deliverable sprints)."New value: +"Proposal structuring methodology: 'shipley' (Shipley Associates capture standard), 'standard_b2b' (commercial enterprise RFP), or 'federal_far' (strict FAR Section L/M mapping)."

changedInput schema / properties / proposal_methodology / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "shipley",
-  "federal_standard",
-  "commercial_agile"
-]New value: +[
+  "shipley",
+  "standard_b2b",
+  "federal_far"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / evaluation_criteria_weights

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Extracted Section M or commercial evaluation scoring factors and relative weights.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / proposal_methodology

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Echoed proposal methodology applied ('shipley', 'standard_b2b', or 'federal_far').",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / proposal_outline / description

Previous value: -"Hierarchical proposal sections with mapped requirement IDs, win theme strategy, and page allocation."New value: +"Structured section-by-section proposal outline with mapped requirements, win themes, and page budgets."

changedOutput schema / properties / requirements_matrix / description

Previous value: -"Extracted mandatory shall/must requirements with priority, volume assignment, and verification evidence needed."New value: +"Ordered list of shredded RFP requirements mapped to proposal sections and required verification evidence."

addedOutput schema / properties / solicitation_title

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Inferred or stated title/scope of the RFP or Statement of Work.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / submission_format_rules

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Extracted administrative formatting, page limit, font, margin, or submission instructions that could trigger rejection if violated.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / total_mandatory_shall_count

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Total count of mandatory ('MANDATORY_SHALL') requirements identified in the text.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / proposal_methodology / description

Added value: +"Proposal structuring methodology: 'shipley' (default evaluator-first Volume I-IV outline with win themes), 'federal_standard' (strict FAR Part 15 Section L/M mapping), or 'commercial_agile' (B2B solution deliverable sprints)."

changedInput schema / properties / raw_text / description

Previous value: -"Raw RFP Section C (SOW), Section L (Instructions), and/or Section M (Evaluation Criteria) text."New value: +"Raw RFP Section C (Statement of Work / PWS), Section L (Instructions to Offerors), and/or Section M (Evaluation Factors) text (50 to 100,000 characters)."

addedInput schema / properties / raw_text / maxLength
```
Added value: +100000
```
addedInput schema / properties / raw_text / minLength
```
Added value: +50
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "proposal_outline": {
+      "description": "Hierarchical proposal sections with mapped requirement IDs, win theme strategy, and page allocation.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "requirements_matrix": {
+      "description": "Extracted mandatory shall/must requirements with priority, volume assignment, and verification evidence needed.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, and the description goes further by disclosing the X-RapidAPI-Key auth requirement and that the operation is stateless — facts not derivable from annotations. The input bound ('50 to 100,000 characters') and default methodology behavior add operational context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its outputs, then constraints, then routing — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long-ish for two parameters, but nearly every clause carries distinct information; only the character-range repetition is slightly redundant with the schema.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it instead covers the remaining gaps: input sources, size limits, auth, default methodology, and sibling alternatives. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the char range largely restates minLength/maxLength, but the description adds real semantic value for the enum by explaining what each methodology actually yields ('shipley' default Volume I-IV structure, 'federal_far' FAR 15.3, 'standard_b2b' commercial conventions) rather than just listing tokens.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Shred unstructured RFP Section C ... Section L ... Section M text') and enumerates the three concrete artifacts produced: a numbered Requirements Traceability Matrix, an L-to-M cross-reference map, and an annotated proposal outline. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from two named siblings, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

States positively when to use it ('shredding a base RFP into a compliance checklist and proposal outline') and gives two explicit exclusions with the condition that selects each: 'analyze_rfp_amendment_diff' for SF-30 amendment comparison and 'generate_rfp_response' for drafting section prose.

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.