Outbound Engine MCP

handle_reply

Classify an inbound reply type to understand its meaning, determine the next move, get reply structure, and avoid common traps.

Instructions

Given the type of reply received, returns what it means, the next move, the reply shape, and the trap to avoid. Reply types: price_question, interested, not_now, no_budget, exposure_offer, spec_request, pay_on_performance, ghosted_after_interest.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reply_type": "<reply_type>"
    },
    "name": "handle_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reply_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly frames the tool as a pure analysis function (returns interpretations) with no side effects, and it specifies the four output components. It does not mention edge cases or error behavior, but for a single-enum lookup tool this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and then lists the valid inputs. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one simple enum parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the input enum and describes the conceptual output (meaning, next move, reply shape, trap). It is self-contained and gives the agent enough to invoke it 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?

Although the schema description coverage is 0% (the description does not name the parameter), the description lists all allowed reply types, which exactly matches the enum values in the schema. This effectively communicates what the parameter should be, and the context implies those are the valid inputs.

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 explicitly states that given a reply type it 'returns what it means, the next move, the reply shape, and the trap to avoid,' which is a specific verb and clear resource. The enumeration of reply types distinguishes it from the sibling tools like detect_red_flags or build_followup_ladder.

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 opening phrase 'Given the type of reply received' clearly establishes the context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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

Deploy Server