Electronic component sourcing in Shenzhen, China for international buyers. Submit RFQs for hard-to-find, obsolete, EOL and spot-market ICs, semiconductors and electronic components. Human sourcing and supplier search handled by Maria Jurk in Shenzhen.
Scored across 1 tool
With only a single tool there is no possibility of tool-to-tool confusion. Its purpose (submitting a sourcing RFQ to a human) is unambiguous and clearly scoped.
The lone name submit_component_rfq follows a clear verb_noun snake_case convention. There is no competing convention to create inconsistency.
A single tool is thin for a sourcing service; the intake action is covered but natural companions (RFQ status check, BOM file upload, retrieving Maria's response) are absent. It is borderline rather than a severe mismatch since the server may intentionally be one-way.
The core submission operation exists, but the lifecycle dead-ends: an agent cannot check RFQ status, attach a BOM file, or retrieve the human's quote/response. Notable gaps for what is presumably a multi-step sourcing workflow.
Submit an electronic component RFQ for human sourcing in Shenzhen, China. Use for hard-to-find, obsolete, EOL, spot-market, BOM, or other components requiring China sourcing. Maria Jurk reviews the request. This tool does not claim real-time inventory or fabricate pricing or availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name of the buyer or contact person submitting the RFQ. | |
| Yes | Buyer email address where Maria Jurk can respond to the RFQ. | ||
| notes | No | Additional sourcing requirements such as date code, target price, destination, lead time, packaging, acceptable alternatives, or BOM context. | |
| company | No | Buyer company or organization name. | |
| quantity | Yes | Required quantity, including units when useful, for example '500 pcs'. | |
| part_number | Yes | Exact manufacturer part number or component identifier the buyer needs sourced. | |
| manufacturer | No | Component manufacturer or brand, if known. Leave empty when unknown. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Whether the RFQ was accepted successfully. |
| error | No | Error message when the RFQ could not be accepted. |
| status | No | RFQ processing status, such as rfq_received. |
| location | No | Location of the human sourcing specialist. |
| reference | No | Unique Jurk RFQ reference for the submitted request. |
| handled_by | No | Human sourcing specialist responsible for reviewing the RFQ. |
| http_status | No | Upstream HTTP status when the RFQ could not be accepted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the write/external nature is covered. The description then adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the request is reviewed by a named human (Maria Jurk), and it does not claim real-time inventory or invent pricing/availability, which sets correct expectations about latency and output reliability.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the use case, and the behavioral caveat. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the goal, the human-review path, and the honesty constraints. It is slightly thin on what the buyer should expect after submission (turnaround, acknowledgment), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description adds no field-level meaning on top of that, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Submit an electronic component RFQ') and pins down the mechanism ('for human sourcing in Shenzhen, China'). It also clarifies the class of parts it targets, so an agent knows exactly what action it performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence gives explicit triggering conditions: hard-to-find, obsolete, EOL, spot-market, BOM components requiring China sourcing. No sibling tools exist to contrast against and no when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
submit_component_rfq
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.