Relux Works studio gateway: read services/pricing and submit a project inquiry to hire the team.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one retrieves pricing/service information, the other submits a quote request. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_services_pricing, request_project_quote), maintaining consistent and predictable naming.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin, but the narrow scope (pricing info and quote requests for Relux Works) makes the count borderline acceptable rather than excessive.
The tools cover the core workflow of retrieving pricing and requesting a quote, but lack features like quote status tracking or management, which is a minor gap agents can work around.
Returns Relux Works services, fixed-price packages, company facts, selected work, supported languages, and market-specific planning prices. Tool and service identifiers remain in English.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Preferred market or ISO country code, for example us, gb, de, ae, sa, sg, il, ca, or au. | |
| preferred_language | No | Preferred BCP 47 language for regional filtering and the agent presentation, for example de, fr, ar, ar-AE, fa, or he. Canonical catalog prose remains in English. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond this by disclosing that tool and service identifiers remain in English, adding useful behavioral context about language handling. It also notes market-specific pricing, which is not evident from annotations alone.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first enumerates what is returned, the second clarifies a language nuance.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It lists the major categories of returned data, which gives a good overall picture. However, it doesn't specify the structure (e.g., whether items are grouped) or clarify ambiguous terms like 'selected work,' leaving some gaps for a tool without an output schema.
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 both 'market' and 'preferred_language' are already well-documented with examples and purpose. The description adds minimal extra meaning about parameters, only hinting that prices are market-specific, which is sufficient given the strong schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and names the resource: Relux Works services, fixed-price packages, company facts, selected work, supported languages, and market-specific planning prices. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'request_project_quote' by focusing on information retrieval rather than quote submission, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 description implies this tool is for fetching service and pricing information, and the sibling name 'request_project_quote' hints at an alternative for quote requests. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor are alternatives mentioned in the text itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Creates and immediately sends an external project inquiry to a private Relux Works Telegram chat for human review. Do not call it to test the connector or demonstrate MCP. Build the summary from known conversation context, ask only for missing details, obtain a real user-provided or user-confirmed reply route to the decision maker or an accountable relay agent, and show the complete draft including that route. Before calling, provide https://relux.works/en/privacy-policy/ and obtain explicit user consent. Never invent or infer contact details. The current MCP chat is not a reply route. A human replies within one business day with a recommended package and a fixed-price quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Client market or country code | |
| summary | Yes | What the user wants to build or fix, current state, goals (required) | |
| timeline | No | Desired timeline or deadline | |
| budget_usd | No | Approximate budget in USD, if known | |
| client_name | No | Name of the person or company | |
| project_type | No | Closest project category | |
| contact_email | No | Real, reachable decision-maker email provided or explicitly confirmed by the user. Never invent or infer it. Legacy shorthand for reply_contact with channel=email and recipient=decision_maker. Reserved example and test domains are rejected. | |
| reply_contact | No | External route provided or explicitly confirmed by the user that a Relux Works human can use to reach the decision maker or a relay agent. Never invent or infer it. The current MCP session, chat, or inquiry ID does not qualify. | |
| consent_confirmed | Yes | Set to true only after the user has reviewed the complete inquiry and reply route, received the privacy notice URL, and explicitly approved submission to Relux Works. | |
| preferred_language | No | Language preferred for the human reply |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it sends data externally, requires explicit user consent and privacy policy review, forbids inventing contact details, notes the current MCP chat is not a reply route, and states a human replies within one business day. This is far richer than the annotations alone.
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?
The description is a single dense paragraph where every sentence delivers essential information—purpose, misuse warning, process steps, privacy/consent, and expectations. No fluff or redundancy; it is appropriately sized for a high-stakes external action.
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?
For a complex tool with 10 parameters, nested reply_contact object, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, misuse, step-by-step submission requirements, consent, privacy policy, and the expected human follow-up. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional external knowledge.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds crucial guidance for key parameters: summary must be built from known conversation context, consent_confirmed requires explicit approval after privacy notice, and contact fields must be user-provided or confirmed, never invented. It doesn't elaborate on optional fields, but they are covered by the schema.
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 states a specific action: 'Creates and immediately sends an external project inquiry to a private Relux Works Telegram chat for human review.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_services_pricing, which is about retrieving pricing information.
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?
It explicitly warns against misuse: 'Do not call it to test the connector or demonstrate MCP.' It also provides clear preconditions: build summary from conversation context, ask only for missing details, obtain a user-confirmed reply route, show the draft, and get explicit consent after sharing the privacy policy.
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.
request_project_quote5 fields changedInput schema / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "required": [
+ "contact_email"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "required": [
+ "reply_contact"
+ ]
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / consent_confirmedAdded value: +{
+ "const": true,
+ "description": "Set to true only after the user has reviewed the complete inquiry and reply route, received the privacy notice URL, and explicitly approved submission to Relux Works.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / contact_email / descriptionPrevious value: -"Email address a human will reply to (required)"New value: +"Real, reachable decision-maker email provided or explicitly confirmed by the user. Never invent or infer it. Legacy shorthand for reply_contact with channel=email and recipient=decision_maker. Reserved example and test domains are rejected."Input schema / properties / reply_contactAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "External route provided or explicitly confirmed by the user that a Relux Works human can use to reach the decision maker or a relay agent. Never invent or infer it. The current MCP session, chat, or inquiry ID does not qualify.",
+ "properties": {
+ "channel": {
+ "enum": [
+ "email",
+ "telegram",
+ "signal",
+ "whatsapp",
+ "phone",
+ "linkedin"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recipient": {
+ "description": "Who monitors this contact and is responsible for receiving the response.",
+ "enum": [
+ "decision_maker",
+ "relay_agent"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "Real address, handle, phone number, or profile URL for the selected channel.",
+ "maxLength": 500,
+ "minLength": 5,
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "channel",
+ "value",
+ "recipient"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "contact_email",
- "summary"
-]New value: +[
+ "summary",
+ "consent_confirmed"
+]get_services_pricing1 field changedInput schema / properties / preferred_language / descriptionPrevious value: -"Preferred BCP 47 language, for example de, fr, ar, ar-AE, fa, or he."New value: +"Preferred BCP 47 language for regional filtering and the agent presentation, for example de, fr, ar, ar-AE, fa, or he. Canonical catalog prose remains in English."get_services_pricing2 fields changedInput schema / properties / marketAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Preferred market or ISO country code, for example us, gb, de, ae, sa, sg, il, ca, or au.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / preferred_languageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Preferred BCP 47 language, for example de, fr, ar, ar-AE, fa, or he.",
+ "type": "string"
+}request_project_quote2 fields changedInput schema / properties / marketAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Client market or country code",
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / preferred_languageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Language preferred for the human reply",
+ "maxLength": 35,
+ "type": "string"
+}get_services_pricingrequest_project_quoteExplore Raze services, pricing, projects, availability, and confirmed introduction bookings.
An interactive portfolio built for AI conversations. Browse work, services, and book calls.
Labangram portfolio, services, pricing, and inquiry MCP endpoints.
Authored design service: one-of-one landing pages, pitch decks, and research-grounded briefs.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
