Skip to main content
Glama

generate_proposal

Generates the final branded .docx proposal from provided JSON and uploads it to Drive, returning the document's shareable link.

Instructions

Generates the final branded proposal .docx and uploads it to the Output Drive folder. This is the LAST step, called once per proposal.

proposal_json must be a JSON string matching this shape: { "title": "Cloud Modernisation Proposal", "client_name": "XYZ Bank", "country": "India", "template_id": "default", "rate_card_path": "/path/to/project_rate_card.xlsx", // optional: path to project-specific rate card "sections": [ { "section_id": "executive_summary", // must match one of get_mandatory_sections() ids "blocks": [ {"type": "paragraph", "text": "..."}, {"type": "bullets", "items": ["...", "..."]}, {"type": "sub_heading", "text": "..."}, {"type": "table", "headers": ["Role","Rate"], "rows": [["Cloud Architect","..."]]}, {"type": "bar_chart", "title": "...", "categories": ["Q1","Q2"], "values": [3,5], "y_label": "FTEs"}, {"type": "pie_chart", "title": "...", "labels": ["Cloud","Security"], "values": [60,40]}, {"type": "gantt_chart", "title": "Engagement Timeline", "tasks": [{"name":"Discovery","start":"2026-08-01","duration_days":14}]}, {"type": "workflow_diagram", "title": "Illustrative Digital-Service Workflow", "workflow_steps": [ {"label":"Users", "detail":"Submit secure requests"}, {"label":"AWS WAF + ALB", "detail":"Protect and route traffic"}, {"label":"Amazon EC2", "detail":"Run application services"}, {"label":"Amazon RDS", "detail":"Store transactional data"}, {"label":"CloudWatch", "detail":"Monitor and alert"} ]} ] }, ... one entry for EACH of the 9 mandatory section ids ... ] }

Authoring standard (important): write as a senior pre-sales consultant. Make every point specific to the supplied client brief and verified tool data. Use concise, complete prose: usually one 50-90 word paragraph per idea and 3-5 parallel bullets where bullets are more scannable. Use tables for comparisons, pricing, roles, assumptions, and milestones; use charts only when the supplied numbers make a decision easier. Avoid filler, repeated claims, unsupported superlatives, and invented numbers. Preserve uncertainty as an assumption or validation item. Return only valid JSON in the required shape—no Markdown, commentary, or duplicated narrative.

The required Illustrative Technical Workflow section must be immediately before Conclusion. Include one workflow_diagram plus, where helpful, one short framing paragraph. Make the components specific to the client domain and selected platform; only use named services (for example Amazon EC2) when they are in scope or clearly labelled illustrative. Keep the diagram to its end-to-end path, rather than a detailed design.

All 9 mandatory sections (see get_mandatory_sections) must be present or this call will fail with a clear error listing what's missing. This compact structure produces a high-quality proposal without wasting output tokens. Returns the Drive link to the finished document.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposal_jsonYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the .docx generation, Drive upload, failure condition (missing mandatory sections), return of the Drive link, and detailed authoring standards. It also specifies structural requirements like the workflow section placement. This is exceptional transparency exceeding typical tool descriptions.

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 long, but each section earns its place: purpose, JSON shape, authoring standard, workflow requirements, and failure condition. It is structured with headings and code blocks, making it scannable. Slightly verbose, but the complexity of the input justifies the length.

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?

Given the single-parameter tool with a complex input shape, the description is thoroughly complete. It covers input structure, optional fields, standards, mandatory sections, and return behavior. An output schema exists (per signal), so not explaining return format is acceptable. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides a complete JSON shape with field names, types, optional markers, and examples for every block type and chart. This far exceeds what any schema description would provide and gives the agent everything needed to construct valid input.

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 'Generates the final branded proposal .docx and uploads it to the Output Drive folder' – a specific verb, resource, and outcome. It also positions itself as 'the LAST step, called once per proposal,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve or validate data (e.g., get_mandatory_sections, list_templates).

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?

It explicitly says this is the final step used once per proposal and references get_mandatory_sections with the requirement that all 9 sections be present. It doesn't name alternatives to exclude, but given the siblings are supporting tools, the usage context is clear. It could have explicitly instructed to call get_mandatory_sections first, but the reference is sufficient.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Shiva-Matangulu/proposal-generator-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server