get_tender_decisionReturn the saved score, bid-or-skip recommendation and reasons for one tender matched to the signed-in TenderLead account. Requires Pro or Team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_id | Yes | TenderLead contract identifier returned by another TenderLead tool. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | Yes | ||
| data_notice | Yes | ||
| opportunity | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / opportunity / properties / assessment_metadataAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / opportunity / 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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely new context: the result is pre-computed and scoped to the signed-in TenderLead account, and access requires a Pro or Team plan. Missing only the failure mode when no decision has been saved.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the return payload front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the plan requirement is disclosed. The one gap is behavior when the tender has no saved decision (error vs empty), which for a lookup tool an agent would want to know before calling.
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 coverage is 100% and the single contract_id parameter is documented in the schema, including its UUID format and provenance. The description reinforces account scoping but adds no syntax or provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Return') and a precise resource: the saved score, bid-or-skip recommendation and reasons for one tender. The word 'saved' implicitly separates it from search_tenders and get_daily_brief, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 plan prerequisite ('Requires Pro or Team') is a useful gating condition, and 'saved' implies a decision must already exist. However, it never says what to do when no decision has been saved yet, nor does it point at an alternative tool for scoring a tender.
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.