MM7 Company MCP

request_service_agreement_edo

Request a template service agreement via EDO. MVP accepts the request into a local queue (no live EDO send).

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": {
      "counterparty_inn": "<counterparty_inn>",
      "counterparty_name": "<counterparty_name>"
    },
    "name": "request_service_agreement_edo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`comment`	No
`template`	No	service_support
`contact_email`	No
`counterparty_inn`	Yes
`counterparty_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a critical behavioral trait: the MVP accepts the request into a local queue and does not perform a live EDO send. This is valuable and non-obvious. However, it omits other behavioral details like what happens to the queued request, whether it's idempotent, or error handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral context. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required parameters (counterparty_inn, counterparty_name) or options, nor does it detail the queue behavior or response. However, it does provide one crucial piece of context (no live send).

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

Parameters2/5

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 for 5 parameters. It adds no information about any parameter (counterparty_inn, counterparty_name, template, comment, contact_email). The schema only provides titles and defaults, leaving parameter meanings undocumented. The description fails to explain expected formats, constraints, or the role of each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb 'Request' plus resource 'template service agreement via EDO' clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling request_* tools by naming EDO and the agreement resource. However, it doesn't differentiate explicitly from other EDO-related tools or state the scope beyond MVP.

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?

The description implies when to use it (when you need to request a service agreement through EDO), but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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?