Skip to main content
Glama

remodeleriq

by io.github.gustavoatar

analyze_bid

Read-onlyIdempotent

Deprecated: prefer remodeleriq_analyze_bid. Analyze a home-remodeling contractor's bid/estimate for fairness and risk. Returns a 0-100 confidence score, red flags, a plain-English summary, and negotiation talk tracks. Note: analyses may contribute de-identified data to aggregate remodeling-risk research.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bid_textYesThe full text of the contractor's bid/estimate (line items, terms, scope).
bid_totalNoThe total dollar amount of the bid, if known.
state_codeNoTwo-letter US state code (e.g. 'TX', 'GA') for localized labor/legal context. Defaults to GA.
finish_tierNoQuality tier of finishes specified in the bid.
scope_depthNoDepth of work: cosmetic (paint/fixtures only), pull_and_replace (replace but not reconfigure), full_gut (down to studs), addition (new square footage).
square_footageNoProject area in square feet, if known (e.g. 200 for a bathroom, 400 for a kitchen).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_metaNo
summaryYes
verdictYes
red_flagsYes
missing_itemsYes
score_breakdownNo
confidence_scoreYes0–100 bid confidence score
negotiation_talk_trackYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by noting that analyses 'may contribute de-identified data to aggregate remodeling-risk research,' disclosing a data-collection side effect not covered by annotations. It also specifies the return payload (confidence score, red flags, summary, talk tracks), adding behavioral context. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and every sentence contributes important information: deprecation, purpose, outputs, and data usage. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the presence of a full output schema and detailed annotations, the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, what it returns, its deprecation status, and a data-privacy note. No critical gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so it neither improves nor degrades the parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze a home-remodeling contractor's bid/estimate for fairness and risk.' It also differentiates from siblings by declaring itself deprecated and pointing to remodeleriq_analyze_bid, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 description explicitly advises against using this tool by saying 'Deprecated: prefer remodeleriq_analyze_bid.' This provides a clear when-not and names the preferred alternative, fully satisfying the usage guideline criterion.

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

All remodeleriq 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The deprecated tools are near-identical duplicates of the new prefixed tools, creating significant overlap. An agent could easily call analyze_bid instead of remodeleriq_analyze_bid, leading to confusion despite the deprecation notes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Two naming patterns coexist: the older unprefixed verbs (analyze_bid, get_cost_estimate) and the newer prefixed verbs (remodeleriq_analyze_bid). This inconsistency is minor on its own but combined with the duplicates it creates a jarring mix.

Tool Count3/5

The raw count of 6 is reasonable, but 3 tools are deprecated duplicates, so the effective unique toolset is only 3. This feels padded and slightly wasteful, though not egregious.

Completeness4/5

The three core functions—bid analysis, cost estimates, and labor rates—cover the primary homeowner needs for remodeling transparency. No obvious lifecycle gaps exist since this is a read/analyze API rather than a CRUD system.

Resources