Skip to main content
Glama

service-contract

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
scopeYesThe services the freelancer provides, e.g. Design and build of a five-page marketing site, with two weeks of post-launch fixes
clientYesWho the work is for, e.g. Brightleaf Studio
clausesNoIds of library clauses to include, from clause_library: ip_assignment, confidentiality, late_payment, kill_fee, revision_rounds. The clause library is a Pro feature
currencyYesISO code the rate and cap are in
end_dateNoThe date the engagement ends, YYYY-MM-DD. Leave unset for an open-ended engagement
rate_unitYesWhat the rate buys: an hour, a day, or the whole project
freelancerYesWho does the work, e.g. Anna Nowak, or Nowak Design
rate_centsYesThe rate in whole cents. 8500 is 85.00
start_dateNoThe date work begins, YYYY-MM-DD. May be in the future; it is a plan, not a log
deliverablesYesWhat the client receives at the end, e.g. ["Five-page site deployed to the client's host", "Handover document"]
jurisdictionNoThe governing law and courts, e.g. England and Wales, or the State of New York
payment_termsYesWhen and how it is paid, e.g. Net 14 from invoice date, or 50% on signing and 50% on delivery
client_addressNo
freelancer_addressNo
liability_cap_centsNoThe most the freelancer can be liable for, in whole cents. Leave unset and liability is uncapped, which the checklist flags
termination_notice_daysNoDays of written notice either party must give to end the agreement, e.g. 14

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It goes beyond the all-false annotations by disclosing that the tool persists the agreement ('Stores the agreement'), returns a rendered Markdown artifact with a signature block, and has a free-tier quota of 3 active agreements with expiration freeing a slot. This gives an agent the side-effect, output, and constraint context annotations alone don't provide. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose/fields, storage/output, quota behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids restating schema details.

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?

Even without an output schema, it tells the agent what to expect (clean Markdown with signature block) and that creation is persistent and quota-limited. The rich schema covers the remaining parameter semantics, so nothing essential is missing for calling this tool.

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 coverage is 82% and the schema already describes each field, including formats and examples. The description groups the fields semantically (parties, scope, deliverables, rate, dates, etc.) but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names the action ('Write'), the object ('a service agreement between a freelancer and a client'), and the timing ('before the work starts'). It also lists the substantive fields and notes that it stores and renders Markdown, which cleanly separates it from read/status sibling tools.

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?

It clearly situates use at the pre-work stage ('before the work starts'), which is a meaningful trigger condition. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as agreement_get/list or agreement_update_status for the opposite cases, though the creation semantics make those exclusions inferable.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.