Skip to main content
Glama

acc_create_rfi

Create a new Request For Information (RFI) in an ACC project via the APS Construction RFIs API. RFI is created in 'draft' status — the project workflow owner typically transitions it to 'submitted'.

When to use: The user needs a formal question-of-record to the design or GC team — e.g. 'raise an RFI asking for clarification on the Level 2 beam schedule'. RFIs are the auditable channel for clarifications; issues are for field observations.

When NOT to use: Do not use for informal observations (use acc_create_issue) or to answer an existing RFI (not supported here).

APS scopes: data:read data:write account:read.

Rate limits: APS default ~50 req/min per endpoint per app. RFIs share the Construction API umbrella with issues (~100 req/min combined).

Errors: 401 (APS token expired — refresh); 403 (user lacks RFI create permission on project); 404 (project_id not found — verify 'b.' prefix and hub membership); 422 (validation — subject/question missing or priority enum invalid); 429 (rate limit — back off 60s); 5xx (ACC upstream — retry with jitter, check for duplicate before retrying).

Side effects: Creates a persistent RFI record. NOT idempotent — retry on 5xx risks duplicates; dedupe by subject before retrying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectYesShort RFI subject/title, 1–255 chars. Required.
priorityNoRFI priority. Defaults to 'medium' if omitted.
questionYesFull RFI question body. Plain text, up to ~10,000 chars. Required.
project_idYesACC project ID. MUST use 'b.' prefix literal. Obtain via acc_list_projects.
assigned_toNoOptional APS user ID of the person the RFI is directed to.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses side effects (persistent record, NOT idempotent, duplicate risk), authentication scopes, rate limits (specific numbers), and a comprehensive error breakdown with causes and actions. This far exceeds typical descriptive transparency.

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 long but every sentence delivers actionable information. It uses clear labeled sections (When to use, When NOT, APS scopes, Rate limits, Errors, Side effects) that make scanning efficient. No filler or redundant phrasing exists.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage boundaries, errors, side effects, rate limits, and scopes comprehensively. However, it omits what the API returns on success (e.g., created RFI ID), which is notable for a creation tool without an output schema. Minor but significant gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema: error messages tie 422 to missing subject/question or invalid priority, and dedupe advice references subject. However, this context is peripheral; most semantic details already exist in the schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('Create a new Request For Information (RFI)'), the target resource ('ACC project via the APS Construction RFIs API'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the draft status and workflow ownership. It clearly differentiates from acc_create_issue via the when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

Contains explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with concrete examples ('raise an RFI asking for clarification...') and alternative tool names (acc_create_issue). It also states limitations ('answer an existing RFI... not supported here'), providing complete guidance on appropriate invocation.

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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity (issue, RFI, project, document, file) and action (create, list, update, search, upload, summary). The 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' notes in descriptions further prevent confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent acc_verb_noun pattern (e.g., acc_create_issue, acc_list_projects, acc_upload_file). Verbs are always lowercase, nouns are singular, and there are no mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for an ACC MCP server. It covers core project management operations (issues, RFIs, projects, documents, file upload) without being too sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers create, read (list), and update for issues, plus create and list for RFIs. Missing update for RFIs and a dedicated get-by-ID for individual issues or RFIs are minor gaps, but the core workflows are supported.

Resources