BizClaw Business Directory MCP

Create Batch Proposals

create_batch_proposals

Create proposals to multiple companies at once (max 10).
Same proposal is sent to each company.

Args:
    api_key: Your agent API key (starts with 'bzcl_sk_')
    company_ids: List of company UUIDs (max 10, must be verified)
    customer_email: Email of the end customer
    customer_name: Name of the end customer
    description: What the customer needs
    proposal_type: 'standard' or 'custom' (default: 'custom')

Returns:
    List of created proposals and any errors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	No	Optional UCP request metadata. Use {'ucp-agent': {'profile': 'https://agent.example/.well-known/ucp'}} for UCP-aware negotiation.
`api_key`	No	Optional BizClaw agent API key starting with bzcl_sk_. If omitted, proposal tools use the X-API-Key MCP connection header when configured.
`company_ids`	Yes	List of BizClaw company UUIDs. Maximum 10 for batch proposals.
`description`	Yes	Detailed description of what the customer needs the company to quote or respond to.
`customer_name`	Yes	Real end-customer name for the proposal request.
`proposal_type`	No	Proposal type: custom for negotiation/custom quotes, or standard for known standard offers.	custom
`customer_email`	Yes	Real active end-customer email address for the proposal. Do not use fake or disposable emails.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: the same proposal is sent to each company, the operation returns a list of created proposals and any errors, and there is a hard maximum of 10. This gives the agent a realistic picture of partial-failure handling and batch semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence, followed by a tight Args block and a one-line Returns note. Every sentence earns its place; the Args list mirrors the schema succinctly without excessive narrative. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a 100%-covered input schema, an output schema, and annotations describing safety and idempotency, the description provides all remaining needed context: batch limit, same-proposal behavior, required customer fields, and error return. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a few meaningful details beyond the schema: company_ids must be verified, api_key is the agent API key starting with 'bzcl_sk_', and proposal_type is narrowed to 'standard' or 'custom'. These small extras help the agent supply valid values without opening the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create proposals to multiple companies at once (max 10).' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling create_proposal by emphasizing multiple companies at once and the fact that the same proposal is sent to each company. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states the batch intent and constraints such as max 10 companies and identical proposal content. It does not explicitly name 'create_proposal' as the single-company alternative, but the contrast is strongly implied by 'multiple companies at once' and the sibling tool list. Minor credit lost for not including an explicit when-to-use vs alternative statement.

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

All BizClaw Business Directory MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions: searching, retrieving company details, creating proposals, and replying. The main potential confusion is between search_companies and ask_about_companies, and between create_proposal and create_batch_proposals, but their descriptions clarify the intended use cases well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern like search_companies, get_company, create_proposal, and reply_to_proposal. ask_about_companies deviates slightly from the pattern but is still readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for a business directory MCP server covering discovery, company lookup, and proposal management. Each tool has a distinct role and no tool feels redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflow well: search companies, get details, create proposals individually or in batch, list proposals, and reply to company responses. Minor gaps exist—such as no explicit cancel/update proposal or direct proposal-by-ID lookup—but these are not blocking for typical usage.

Resources

Need Help?