Andru

Score fit to a buyer's needs

get_evaluation_criteria

Read-only

After discovery, checking what the buyer said they need against what the person offers: use this when the person knows what a buyer needs and wants to see how well their product matches. Pass the buyer's buyerPainPoints and requiredCapabilities. Returns 0-100 for pain coverage, outcome clarity, capability fit and 3 more dimensions, plus an overall score. To check whether a company is a fit at all, use get_icp_fit_score.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_evaluation_criteria"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vertical`	No	The industry the user sells into (e.g., "fintech", "healthcare", "defense"). Infer from conversation context — the user's product description, company name, or the companies they're asking about. If unclear, ask.
`buyerSize`	No	Buyer company size
`targetRole`	No	The buyer role being evaluated (e.g., "CFO", "CTO", "VP Sales"). Infer from context — often explicit in the user's question. If not mentioned, default to the most senior relevant role for their vertical.
`buyerIndustry`	No	Buyer's industry
`buyerPainPoints`	No	Pain points the buyer has expressed or you expect them to have
`productDescription`	No	A brief description of what the user's product does and who it's for. Infer this from the conversation if the user has already described their product. If the user hasn't mentioned their product yet, ask them: "What does your product do, and who do you sell to?" before calling this tool.
`requiredCapabilities`	No	Capabilities the buyer needs from a solution

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds return-value context that the annotations do not cover — it discloses that the tool returns 0-100 scores across several named dimensions plus an overall score. Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so the remaining behavioral burden is light; what is missing is only how the '3 more dimensions' are identified and whether results are deterministic.

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?

Three tight sentences: precondition first, inputs second, return shape third, with the sibling reroute last. No repetition of the title or schema, and nothing padding the front.

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 7-parameter, read-only, open-world scoring tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger context, key inputs, and result shape adequately. The only gap is that it summarises the output as 'pain coverage, outcome clarity, capability fit and 3 more dimensions' without naming the remaining three, which an agent cannot reconstruct from any structured field.

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 schema already explains all 7 parameters in detail. The description highlights buyerPainPoints and requiredCapabilities as the inputs to pass, which is a mild prioritisation signal, but it adds no format, array-contents, or inference guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (scoring/checking fit) and a specific resource (buyer pain points and required capabilities vs. what the person offers), and explicitly separates itself from get_icp_fit_score. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a 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?

It states the trigger condition ('after discovery, when the person knows what a buyer needs'), the goal ('see how well their product matches'), and names the alternative tool with its distinct purpose ('to check whether a company is a fit at all, use get_icp_fit_score'). The 'after discovery' phrasing also implies a when-not.

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

All Andru 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.