made.show

Request a work sample

request_work_sample

Send a candidate a brief for a real work sample: what you need, the context and when you need it. Before sending, ask the user for anything missing (what they need, their company, their name and email) and show them the brief, since the candidate gets notified. The candidate accepts or declines in made.show and replies with the work and their reasoning. Returns a token: keep it in the conversation and pass it to get_work_sample to check the status or read the work.

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": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "contactName": "<contactName>",
      "contactEmail": "<contactEmail>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "request_work_sample"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Short name for the brief, e.g. "Onboarding flow redesign"
`handle`	No	Handle or full name
`company`	Yes	The requesting company
`context`	No	Links or background, e.g. your design system docs
`deadline`	No	When you need it, as YYYY-MM-DD
`contactName`	Yes	Name of the person sending the brief
`description`	Yes	The brief: what you want made, the ambition, constraints
`contactEmail`	Yes	Email the candidate's reply goes to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedNov 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / company / description
```
Added value: +"The requesting company"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / contactEmail / description
```
Added value: +"Email the candidate's reply goes to"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / contactName / description
```
Added value: +"Name of the person sending the brief"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / deadline / description
```
Added value: +"When you need it, as YYYY-MM-DD"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / title / description
```
Added value: +"Short name for the brief, e.g. \"Onboarding flow redesign\""
```
First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the candidate receives a notification, accepts or declines in made.show, and replies with work plus reasoning, and a token is returned that must be retained across turns. That is valuable context for an openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. It stops short of stating rate limits, error modes, or what happens if a candidate never responds, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the confirmation requirement, then the outcome, then the token handoff. Dense but every sentence carries information; only minor trimming is possible (e.g. restating "what you need" twice).

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (a token) and how to use it downstream, plus the human-in-the-loop confirmation requirement for an external, notifying action. Completeness is good for an 8-parameter mutation; only failure/decline handling details are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so field meanings, formats and limits (email pattern, YYYY-MM-DD deadline, max lengths) are already fully documented. The description reinforces which fields belong to the requester versus the brief, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Send a candidate a brief for a real work sample") and immediately clarifies scope: a real work sample with requirements, context, and a deadline. It is clearly separable from the sibling get_work_sample, which it explicitly frames as the follow-up read operation.

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?

Gives explicit pre-call workflow: collect missing fields from the user (what they need, company, name, email) and show them the brief before sending because the candidate is notified. It also names the next step and the alternative tool (pass the token to get_work_sample to check status or read the work), so the agent knows both when to call this and what to do after.

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

All made.show 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?