service-agreement

Write a service agreement

agreement_create

Write a service agreement between a freelancer and a client before the work starts: the parties, the scope of services, the deliverables, the rate and payment terms, start and end dates, a termination notice period, a liability cap and the governing jurisdiction. Stores the agreement and returns it rendered as clean Markdown with a signature block. Free tier: 3 active agreements; expiring a finished one frees its slot.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`scope`	Yes	The services the freelancer provides, e.g. Design and build of a five-page marketing site, with two weeks of post-launch fixes
`client`	Yes	Who the work is for, e.g. Brightleaf Studio
`clauses`	No	Ids of library clauses to include, from clause_library: ip_assignment, confidentiality, late_payment, kill_fee, revision_rounds. The clause library is a Pro feature
`currency`	Yes	ISO code the rate and cap are in
`end_date`	No	The date the engagement ends, YYYY-MM-DD. Leave unset for an open-ended engagement
`rate_unit`	Yes	What the rate buys: an hour, a day, or the whole project
`freelancer`	Yes	Who does the work, e.g. Anna Nowak, or Nowak Design
`rate_cents`	Yes	The rate in whole cents. 8500 is 85.00
`start_date`	No	The date work begins, YYYY-MM-DD. May be in the future; it is a plan, not a log
`deliverables`	Yes	What the client receives at the end, e.g. ["Five-page site deployed to the client's host", "Handover document"]
`jurisdiction`	No	The governing law and courts, e.g. England and Wales, or the State of New York
`payment_terms`	Yes	When and how it is paid, e.g. Net 14 from invoice date, or 50% on signing and 50% on delivery
`client_address`	No
`freelancer_address`	No
`liability_cap_cents`	No	The most the freelancer can be liable for, in whole cents. Leave unset and liability is uncapped, which the checklist flags
`termination_notice_days`	No	Days of written notice either party must give to end the agreement, e.g. 14

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool stores the agreement and returns it rendered as Markdown with a signature block, and mentions the free-tier quota with a release mechanism. It does not cover error handling or validation, but the main side effects are clear.

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 concise sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the content list is compact, and the output/quota info is tacked on efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, the output format, and a key quota constraint. It does not detail all parameters, but the schema does. The omission of error conditions and interaction with siblings like agreement_checklist is a minor gap, but overall the description is adequate for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of what the agreement includes, but does not clarify format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high coverage without adding significant value.

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: writing a service agreement between freelancer and client. It enumerates the key sections (parties, scope, deliverables, rate, payment terms, dates, termination, liability, jurisdiction) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it stores the agreement and returns rendered Markdown. This is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context ('before the work starts') and a constraint (free tier: 3 active agreements), which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like agreement_update_status for modifications, but the create-vs-update distinction is implied by the verb and the sibling list. A clear when-not-to-use statement would elevate this to 5.

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

All service-agreement 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.

Write a service agreement

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources