BizClaw Business Directory MCP

Create Proposal

create_proposal

Create a proposal/quote request to a verified company on behalf of a customer.
Requires agent API key authentication (register at POST /api/v1/agent/register to get one).

Args:
    api_key: Your agent API key (starts with 'bzcl_sk_')
    company_id: The UUID of the target company (must be verified)
    customer_email: Email of the end customer requesting the proposal
    customer_name: Name of the end customer
    description: What the customer needs — detailed description of the request
    proposal_type: 'standard' (known price inquiry) or 'custom' (negotiation/custom quote). Default: 'custom'

Returns:
    Created proposal with ID, status, and company info.

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_id`	Yes	BizClaw company UUID returned by search_companies or get_company_by_website.
`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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful context: authentication via agent API key, requirement that company be verified, and that a new proposal is created with ID/status. It also clarifies proposal_type semantics. No contradicton with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and one critical auth prerequisite, then a logically grouped Args list and return note. The Args block duplicates schema property descriptions, but the tool is complex enough that the redundancy is acceptable and every line carries some added nuance.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites (auth, verified company), required customer fields, proposal type options, and what is returned. It omits only explicit guidance on when to prefer create_batch_proposals.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter already documented (e.g., api_key prefix, proposal_type options, customer_email real vs fake). The description's Args section adds slight reinforcement (e.g., 'known price inquiry' vs 'negotiation/custom quote') but largely repeats schema content, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: create a proposal/quote request to a verified company on behalf of a customer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_proposals (read), reply_to_proposal (respond), and create_batch_proposals (batch creation). The 'verified company' constraint further scopes the operation.

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?

Description provides context for when to call: must have a verified company_id, an agent API key, and end-customer details. It also distinguishes proposal_type standard vs custom, helping select behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_batch_proposals or reply_to_proposal, so an agent must infer tool selection from sibling names.

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?