BizClaw Business Directory MCP

Get My Proposals

get_my_proposals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get all proposals created by the current agent.
Use this to check proposal status and company responses.

Args:
    api_key: Your agent API key (starts with 'bzcl_sk_')
    status_filter: Optional filter: 'pending', 'approved', 'rejected', 'responded'
    limit: Max results (default 50, max 100)
    offset: Pagination offset (default 0)

Returns:
    List of proposals with status, company response, and customer info.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`meta`	No	Optional UCP request metadata. Use {'ucp-agent': {'profile': 'https://agent.example/.well-known/ucp'}} for UCP-aware negotiation.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return. Use 1-20 for searches and 1-100 for proposal lists.
`offset`	No	Pagination offset. Increase with limit to fetch later pages.
`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.
`status_filter`	No	Optional proposal status filter: pending, approved, rejected, or responded. Omit by default.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns only the current agent's proposals, includes company responses and customer info, and documents authentication via an API key format. No contradictions 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?

The description is well-structured with a one-line purpose, an Args block, and a Returns block. It is slightly redundant with the schema, since it restates parameters that are already documented, but the extra details about defaults, formats, and valid filters make the repetition worthwhile.

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?

For a read-only, filtered-list tool with full schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description is complete. An agent knows what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters matter, and what the return value contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description goes beyond the schema by giving the API key prefix, enumerating valid status_filter values, and specifying limit defaults and maximums. It omits meta in the Args list, but the schema already handles that parameter.

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 clearly states 'Get all proposals created by the current agent,' naming the specific verb, resource, and ownership scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_proposal, reply_to_proposal, and search_companies, which act on different resources or actions.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check proposal status and company responses,' providing a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?