MM7 Company MCP

request_cloud_trial

Order a 1C:GRM cloud demo (or queue Fresh). Required for GRM: product_sku (from list_cloud_trial_offers), inn, phone, email, company_name, contact_name (ФИО). Optional: kit (Файловый/Клиент-серверный), portal_login, employee_count, seats. Creates demo via Partner API /orders/submit; login usually emailed by 1capp.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "product_sku": "<product_sku>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "company_name": "<company_name>"
    },
    "name": "request_cloud_trial"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inn`	No
`kit`	No
`email`	Yes
`phone`	Yes
`seats`	No
`comment`	No
`product_sku`	Yes
`company_name`	Yes
`contact_name`	No
`portal_login`	No
`employee_count`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: the order is created via Partner API /orders/submit, Fresh requests may be queued, and the login is 'usually' emailed by 1capp (i.e. an asynchronous side effect with an unreliable delivery channel). It omits permissions/idempotency/error handling, but the mutation profile and delivery mechanism are clearly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then required fields, then optional fields, then backend behavior — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is telegraphic (ФИО, 'Fresh', 'kit') but each fragment carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the side effect and how credentials arrive. The only gaps are the undocumented 'comment' parameter and the required-vs-optional mismatch for inn/contact_name relative to the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, naming 10 of the 11 parameters including the enum values for kit (Файловый/Клиент-серверный) and the source of product_sku. Only 'comment' is undocumented, and the description slightly conflicts with the schema by listing inn and contact_name as 'required for GRM' while the schema marks them optional.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — 'Order a 1C:GRM cloud demo (or queue Fresh)' — and immediately identifies the companion tool it depends on (list_cloud_trial_offers) for the key parameter. An agent can tell it apart from get_cloud_trial_status, list_cloud_trial_offers and the ITS-renewal siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It tells the agent where to source product_sku ('from list_cloud_trial_offers') and distinguishes the GRM vs Fresh paths, which is useful implied guidance. But it never says when NOT to use this tool, nor does it point at get_cloud_trial_status for follow-up, so routing context is only implied.

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

All MM7 Company MCP 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.

Resources

Need Help?