Skip to main content
Glama
closermethod

SMB Sales Intelligence MCP

get_objection_response

Handle sales objections like 'too expensive' or 'no budget' with psychology-backed responses. Select the objection type to get a tailored counterargument.

Instructions

Handle a specific sales objection with psychology-backed responses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objection_typeYesThe type of objection to handle

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'get_objection_response' tool. Extracts objection_type from args, looks up the corresponding OBJECTION_HANDLERS entry, and returns the objection handling data (psychology, response, follow-up advice, mistakes to avoid) as JSON.
    case "get_objection_response": {
      const objectionType = args?.objection_type as string;
      const handler = OBJECTION_HANDLERS[objectionType as keyof typeof OBJECTION_HANDLERS];
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify({
            module: "Objection Handling",
            framework: {
              step_1: "Acknowledge — make them feel heard",
              step_2: "Clarify — find the real objection",
              step_3: "Reframe — address the actual concern"
            },
            ...handler
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • Schema/registration of the 'get_objection_response' tool in the tools list. Defines inputSchema with required 'objection_type' parameter, enum of objection types, and description.
    {
      name: "get_objection_response",
      description: "Handle a specific sales objection with psychology-backed responses.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          objection_type: {
            type: "string",
            enum: ["too_expensive", "no_budget", "need_approval", "comparing_options", "bad_timing", "already_have_someone", "send_info", "need_to_think", "too_soon", "ghosting"],
            description: "The type of objection to handle"
          }
        },
        required: ["objection_type"]
      }
    },
  • src/main.ts:647-657 (registration)
    Server setup and capability declaration for the MCP server named 'smb-sales-intelligence'.
    const server = new Server(
      {
        name: "smb-sales-intelligence",
        version: "2.0.0",
      },
      {
        capabilities: {
          tools: {},
        },
      }
    );
  • src/main.ts:660-662 (registration)
    Server request handler for ListToolsRequestSchema, registering all available tools including get_objection_response.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => {
      return {
        tools: [
  • OBJECTION_HANDLERS data object containing all objection types (too_expensive, no_budget, need_approval, comparing_options, bad_timing, already_have_someone, send_info, need_to_think, too_soon, ghosting) with psychology, response, follow-up, and mistake_to_avoid fields.
    const OBJECTION_HANDLERS = {
      too_expensive: {
        objection: "Your price is too high",
        psychology: "Price objections are rarely about price — they're about perceived value.",
        response: "Fair point — let me ask: is it the total investment that feels off, or the value relative to what you're getting? Because I can usually solve one of those.",
        if_its_the_number: "Offer Option A with reduced scope. Never discount Option B.",
        if_its_the_value: "Restate the specific ROI: 'Most clients see X within Y weeks. Would that math work for you?'",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Never immediately offer a discount — it signals your original price was fake."
      },
      no_budget: {
        objection: "We don't have budget right now",
        psychology: "This is often a polite rejection, but sometimes it's real timing.",
        response: "Makes sense — budget cycles are real. Quick question: is this 'not ever' or more 'not this quarter'? If it's timing, I'd rather hold your place than lose the conversation.",
        if_timing: "Set a specific follow-up date: 'I'll reach out [date]. Does that work?'",
        if_never: "Thank them, ask for referral: 'Totally understand. Anyone in your network who might be looking for this?'",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Don't push back on budget — you can't create money that isn't there."
      },
      need_approval: {
        objection: "I need to check with my team/boss",
        psychology: "You're talking to an influencer, not the decision-maker.",
        response: "Totally get it — is there anything I can put together that would make that conversation easier? A one-pager, ROI calc, anything?",
        follow_up: "Offer: 'Happy to jump on a quick call with them if that helps. Sometimes an outside voice makes it easier.'",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Don't bypass them to reach the boss — you'll lose the champion."
      },
      comparing_options: {
        objection: "We're looking at other vendors",
        psychology: "Good sign — they're actively buying. Make sure you're comparing apples to apples.",
        response: "Smart move — you should be. What's the main thing you're comparing on? Price, quality, turnaround, or something else?",
        follow_up: "Once you know their criteria, show how you win on that specific dimension.",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Don't trash competitors — it makes you look insecure."
      },
      bad_timing: {
        objection: "Not the right time / too busy",
        psychology: "Either a soft rejection or genuine timing issue.",
        response: "Heard. Is this 'wrong quarter' or 'wrong week'? If it's just timing, I'd rather stay on your radar than start from scratch later.",
        follow_up: "Get specific: 'When would be better? I'll set a reminder and reach out then.'",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Don't accept vague timing — pin them to a date."
      },
      already_have_someone: {
        objection: "We already work with someone",
        psychology: "Loyalty is good, but most relationships aren't exclusive.",
        response: "Nice — is that relationship locked in, or do you occasionally test new partners? Most brands I work with started as a 'test' alongside their existing team.",
        follow_up: "Offer low-risk trial: 'What if we did one small project? If it works, great. If not, no hard feelings.'",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Don't try to replace — try to complement."
      },
      send_info: {
        objection: "Can you just send your portfolio/deck/info?",
        psychology: "They're trying to skip the conversation. Don't let them.",
        response: "Absolutely — before I do, quick context question: what's the main problem you're trying to solve? Helps me send the most relevant stuff.",
        follow_up: "Always qualify before sending generic materials.",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Don't send a generic portfolio — you'll get ghosted."
      },
      need_to_think: {
        objection: "Let me think about it",
        psychology: "There's a specific blocker they're not saying.",
        response: "Of course — what's the main thing you're weighing? If it's timing, scope, or budget, I might be able to help narrow it down.",
        follow_up: "Once you identify the real blocker, address it directly.",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Don't say 'take your time' — that kills urgency."
      },
      too_soon: {
        objection: "It's too early for us to think about this",
        psychology: "They don't see the cost of waiting.",
        response: "Totally fair. Quick question: what needs to happen before this becomes a priority? I want to make sure I reach out at the right time.",
        follow_up: "Understand their buying triggers, then follow up when those triggers happen.",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Don't push — you'll burn the relationship."
      },
      ghosting: {
        objection: "No response to follow-ups",
        psychology: "They're not saying no — they're saying 'not urgent enough to respond.'",
        day_5_message: "Had a thought for your [product/campaign]: [specific idea or observation]. Want me to build that into the proposal?",
        day_7_message: "Closing the loop — reply 'A', 'B', or 'C' if you want to pick this back up. Otherwise, I'll assume timing shifted.",
        day_14_message: "Saw you just [launched X / posted Y]. If you need help with [specific thing], I have a slot this week.",
        mistake_to_avoid: "Never send 'just checking in' — it adds no value."
      }
    };
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'psychology-backed' but does not disclose return format, side effects, or any special behavior. For a simple lookup tool, this is minimally adequate.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys the purpose. There is no wasted text, though it could potentially include more detail without harming conciseness.

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 tool with one required enum parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough to understand its function. The lack of usage guidelines prevents a higher score.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with enum descriptions. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it handles a sales objection with psychology-backed responses, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like call scripts or email templates. The verb 'handle' is slightly vague but sufficient given the context of the enum parameter.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_call_script or get_closing_script. The description implies usage when encountering an objection, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons with siblings.

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/closermethod/smb-sales-intelligence-mcp'

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