Stipple — Document Verification & Extraction

Match tenders to a company

match_tenders

Read-only

Rank open tenders against what a company actually does. Free, inside the weekly cap.

USE THIS WHEN someone asks which opportunities suit a specific business: "what could we
bid for", "is there anything for a civil contractor in Victoria", "find work for
acme.com.au". Give `company_url` — a plain domain is fine, we resolve it — and we read
their site, build a capability profile, and score the shortlist against it.

`example` runs a built-in profile (civil, it, facilities) with no site read, for
demonstrating the shape of the answer.

Returns `{profile, matched, shown, withheld, withheld_reason, matches[], degraded,
score_means, coverage}`. Each match has `score`, `band`, `why[]` — the company's own
stated capabilities this tender needs — and `gaps[]`, things the tender asks for that
their website does not mention. An anonymous call shows the strongest few and says
how many were withheld; relay `withheld_reason` as it is.

TELL THE USER WHAT THE SCORE IS: relative fit within these results, against what their
website says. NOT a probability of winning. And `gaps` is what to check before bidding,
not a list of everything the tender requires — that is in the tender documents.

When `degraded` is true, scoring was unavailable and the order is keyword relevance
only, with no `why`/`gaps`. Say so rather than presenting it as a judged ranking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`example`	No
`company_url`	No
`jurisdiction`	No
`closing_before`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is free and within a weekly cap, reads the company website, builds a capability profile, scores tenders, handles degraded mode (keyword-only ordering), and withholds some matches with a reason. It also explains how to interpret the score and gaps, going well beyond the annotation.

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 information-dense. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then covers parameters, output fields, and caveats in a logical order. Every sentence adds value, and the use of paragraphs and examples keeps it scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (scoring, degraded mode, withheld matches) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure, how to present results, and what caveats to communicate. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 0% and the description explains `company_url` (plain domain is fine, it is resolved) and `example` (built-in profile, no site read), but it does not explicitly describe `jurisdiction` or `closing_before`. These are inferable from context (e.g., 'Victoria' example implies jurisdiction), but not stated, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rank open tenders against what a company actually does.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_tenders (which likely searches tenders) and check_document by focusing on matching to a company's capabilities.

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?

The description provides explicit trigger conditions with concrete examples ('what could we bid for', 'is there anything for a civil contractor in Victoria'), and even explains the `example` mode for demonstration. It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool.

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

All Stipple — Document Verification & Extraction 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.