Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SignalTender B2B, GovCon & LegalTech MCP Server

by io.github.aarbchen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Build GovCon IGCE, Indirect Wrap-Rate & Price-to-Win (PTW) Model

generate_igce_price_to_win
Read-onlyIdempotent

Model an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), compounded Indirect Wrap-Rate breakdown (Fringe, Overhead, G&A, and Fee/Profit), GSA CALC+ aligned LCAT rate card, multi-year Section B CLIN pricing schedule, 4-scenario Price-to-Win (PTW) sensitivity matrix, and Shipley Volume IV Basis of Estimate (BOE) narrative from RFP Section B/SOW text. This is a read-only, stateless financial modeling and estimation call (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; rfp_section_b_and_sow_text accepts 30 to 120,000 characters, optional historical_benchmark_and_incumbent_context and bidder_indirect_wrap_assumptions anchor indirect multipliers and incumbent baselines, and evaluation_methodology calibrates FAR 15.101-1 Best-Value Tradeoff vs. LPTA or FAR 15.404-1(d) Cost Realism). Use this tool when building forward-looking Volume IV Price/Cost models, wrap-rate build-ups, and Price-to-Win targets; use search_historical_awards instead to query past FPDS/SAM award records, or extract_pricing_schedule to parse an existing vendor quote or invoice table.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
evaluation_methodologyNoSource selection evaluation methodology: 'BEST_VALUE_TRADEOFF' (FAR 15.101-1), 'LPTA_LOWEST_PRICE_TECHNICALLY_ACCEPTABLE' (FAR 15.101-2), 'HIGHEST_TECHNICALLY_RATED_FAIR_REASONABLE_PRICE', or 'COST_REALISM_CPFF' (FAR 15.404-1(d)).BEST_VALUE_TRADEOFF
rfp_section_b_and_sow_textYesRaw RFP Section B (Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs), PWS/SOW level-of-effort & LCAT staffing requirements, contract type (FFP, T&M, Labor-Hour, CPFF), Period of Performance (Base + Option Years), and Place of Performance (Contractor-site vs. Government-site).
bidder_indirect_wrap_assumptionsNoOptional bidder indirect rate assumptions (Fringe %, Overhead %, G&A %, Target Fee/Profit %, annual productive hours per FTE such as 1,880 or 1,920, and annual Option Year escalation %).
historical_benchmark_and_incumbent_contextNoOptional incumbent contract value, FPDS/USAspending historical award benchmarks, GSA MAS SIN 54151S CALC+ ceiling rates, or known agency budget ceilings to anchor the IGCE and Price-to-Win model.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ptw_discount_vs_igce_pctNoPercentage difference between recommended Price-to-Win and the estimated IGCE (e.g., -6.4 represents a 6.4% discount below IGCE).
ptw_sensitivity_scenariosNoCompetitive Price-to-Win sensitivity matrix (Aggressive Floor, Recommended Target PTW, Incumbent Benchmark, IGCE Ceiling).
recommended_price_to_win_usdNoRecommended total evaluated Price-to-Win ($ USD) across Base + all Option Years.
solicitation_pricing_overviewNoExecutive summary of contract structure, total FTEs, Period of Performance, and pricing strategy.
lcat_rate_card_and_fte_buildupNoBottom-up LCAT staffing, unburdened direct wage, burdened bill rate, and GSA CALC+ benchmark table.
wrap_rate_calculator_breakdownNoCompounded Fringe, Overhead, G&A, and Fee wrap-rate breakdown.
clin_period_of_performance_scheduleNoSection B CLIN pricing schedule across Base Year and Option Years.
section_b_cost_narrative_and_boe_summaryNoReady-to-paste Shipley Volume IV Price/Cost Narrative and Basis of Estimate (BOE) justification.
cost_realism_and_price_reasonableness_postureNoFAR 15.404-1 Price Reasonableness & Cost Realism risk classification.
independent_government_cost_estimate_igce_usdNoEstimated Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) baseline ($ USD) across the full PoP.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed10 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / bidder_indirect_wrap_assumptions / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / historical_benchmark_and_incumbent_context / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedOutput schema / properties / clin_period_of_performance_schedule
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Section B CLIN pricing schedule across Base Year and Option Years.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / cost_realism_and_price_reasonableness_posture / description
      Previous value: -"FAR 15.404-1 Price Reasonableness and Cost Realism risk posture."New value: +"FAR 15.404-1 Price Reasonableness & Cost Realism risk classification."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / ptw_discount_vs_igce_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Percentage difference between recommended Price-to-Win and the estimated IGCE (e.g., -6.4 represents a 6.4% discount below IGCE).",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / ptw_sensitivity_scenarios / description
      Previous value: -"4-scenario Price-to-Win sensitivity matrix with Pwin impact and SSEB tradeoff analysis."New value: +"Competitive Price-to-Win sensitivity matrix (Aggressive Floor, Recommended Target PTW, Incumbent Benchmark, IGCE Ceiling)."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / recommended_price_to_win_usd / description
      Previous value: -"Recommended total evaluated Price-to-Win ($ USD) across Base and all Option Years."New value: +"Recommended total evaluated Price-to-Win ($ USD) across Base + all Option Years."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / section_b_cost_narrative_and_boe_summary
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Ready-to-paste Shipley Volume IV Price/Cost Narrative and Basis of Estimate (BOE) justification.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / solicitation_pricing_overview
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Executive summary of contract structure, total FTEs, Period of Performance, and pricing strategy.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / wrap_rate_calculator_breakdown / description
      Previous value: -"Compounded Fringe, Overhead, G&A, and Fee/Profit wrap-rate breakdown."New value: +"Compounded Fringe, Overhead, G&A, and Fee wrap-rate breakdown."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the description correctly does not re-argue safety; instead it adds genuinely new context — that the call is stateless and requires an X-RapidAPI-Key, plus character-bounds on the main input. It does not disclose runtime, cost, or failure modes, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, but the first is a long deliverable enumeration and the second crams auth, length bounds, and three parameter roles into one run-on. It is front-loaded and mostly earns its space, yet the density makes it harder to scan than a short structured list would.

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?

For a 4-parameter single-shot modeling call with a full output schema, the description covers inputs, auth, statelessness, and routing to alternatives. Missing only operational details such as expected latency or output size, which for a heavy modeling call would be useful but are not essential to invoke it correctly.

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; the description nonetheless explains the functional role of each optional parameter — that historical/incumbent context and bidder wrap assumptions 'anchor indirect multipliers and incumbent baselines' and that evaluation_methodology calibrates FAR 15.101-1 tradeoff vs. LPTA or 15.404-1(d) cost realism. That causal framing is not present in the schema and helps an agent decide whether to supply the optional 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 precise verb and a concrete set of deliverables (IGCE, wrap-rate breakdown, LCAT rate card, Section B CLIN schedule, PTW matrix, BOE narrative) derived from RFP Section B/SOW text. The scope is distinguishable from every sibling, particularly extract_pricing_schedule and search_historical_awards, 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('forward-looking Volume IV Price/Cost models, wrap-rate build-ups, and Price-to-Win targets') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: search_historical_awards for past FPDS/SAM records and extract_pricing_schedule for parsing an existing quote or invoice table. 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 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