Skip to main content
Glama

annual_review_email

Write an end-of-year review email for long-term clients. Summarize deliverables, highlight results, and suggest next steps to open renewal discussions.

Instructions

Write an end-of-year (or end-of-engagement-period) review email to a long-term client — what was delivered, the standout result, a reflection on the working relationship, and a forward-looking suggestion for the next period. Positions you as a strategic partner rather than a transactional vendor. Naturally opens the conversation for renewal or expansion without hard-selling. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesThe client's first name
engagement_durationYesHow long you have worked together (e.g. 'this past year', '12 months', 'the past two years')
key_deliverablesYesThe main things you delivered over the period — comma-separated (e.g. 'monthly blog content, SEO audit, landing page rewrites, email sequences')
highlightYesThe single biggest win, result, or moment worth calling out (e.g. 'the homepage rewrite that cut bounce rate by 30%', 'launching the new product line on time and under budget', 'the campaign that generated 40 qualified leads in the first month')
next_suggestionYesWhat you're suggesting for the next period — can be a renewal, an expansion, or simply an invitation to discuss (e.g. 'continue at the same scope', 'add quarterly strategy sessions', 'expand into email marketing', 'a quick call to map out next year')
your_nameNoOptional: your name for the sign-off
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the email does not count against the monthly draft limit and positions as a strategic partner without hard-selling. However, it does not address other behavioral aspects like destructive actions, authentication needs, or whether the email is sent automatically or returned as text.

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 concise (few sentences) and well-structured: it states the purpose, lists content components, explains the strategic benefit, and notes a constraint (draft limit). Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the email's structure and content. It covers the key elements a user needs to know. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the tool generates draft text (implying the output is the email body) or clarifying whether it saves the draft or returns it.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little extra meaning beyond the schema; it provides usage examples (e.g., comma-separated deliverables) that are already in the schema descriptions. No significant new semantic value is added by the description text.

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 the tool writes an end-of-year review email to long-term clients, listing specific content sections (deliverables, result, reflection, suggestion). It distinguishes itself from transactional vendor emails, and among siblings like 'client_anniversary_email' or 'retainer_check_in_email', this tool's focus on annual review and strategic positioning is unique.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implicitly indicates use for end-of-year or end-of-engagement periods with long-term clients, and mentions it opens renewal discussions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives among the many sibling email tools, leading to some ambiguity.

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/jabbawocky/proposalcraft'

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