get_daily_briefReturn the signed-in TenderLead account's current matched tender brief. Read-only and customer-scoped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | Yes | ||
| data_notice | Yes | ||
| generated_at | Yes | ||
| opportunities | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / opportunities / items / properties / assessment_metadataAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / opportunities / items / properties / assessment_stateAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "excluded",
+ "needs_review",
+ "consider",
+ "low_fit"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The description does add that results are scoped to the signed-in customer and represent the 'current' brief, which is useful behavioral context, but nothing about freshness window or what happens when no brief exists.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource. Slight redundancy in restating 'read-only', which annotations already cover, keeps it just below top marks.
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 not be described. The description covers scope, freshness ('current'), and read-only nature, leaving only the no-match case unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a zero-param read tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no caller-supplied input is needed by emphasizing the signed-in account scope.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the ... current matched tender brief'. Account scoping ('signed-in TenderLead account') adds precision. It does not explicitly contrast with get_tender_decision, which sounds closely related, so the sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the 'current matched brief' phrasing, but there is no statement of when to call this versus get_tender_decision or search_tenders, and no exclusions or prerequisites given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.