Skip to main content
Glama

bid_lost_follow_up

Write a gracious follow-up email after losing a competitive bid to stay on the client's radar for future work, without sounding bitter or desperate.

Instructions

Write the professional follow-up email to send after you didn't win a competitive bid or pitch. Keeps the relationship warm without sounding bitter, desperate, or entitled — the goal is one clear thing: staying on their radar for future work. Under 100 words body. Gracious, brief, no post-mortem. Distinct from cold_pitch_follow_up (no response to a cold pitch — this is when they actively told you they went with someone else), client_followup (chasing a proposal that hasn't been decided yet), and no_response_closure_email (closing a ghost). Does not count against your monthly draft limit. Required: client_name, project_description (e.g. 'the website redesign project', 'your Q3 social media campaign'). Optional: reason_if_known (what they told you — e.g. 'went with a larger agency', 'found someone with more industry experience'; used to tailor tone), future_work_angle (a specific type of work you'd like to be considered for — e.g. 'smaller copy projects', 'ongoing social content'), project_name, your_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesClient's first name or full name
project_descriptionYesBrief description of the project you bid on (e.g. 'the website redesign', 'your Q3 campaign', 'the brand identity project')
reason_if_knownNoThe reason they gave for choosing someone else, if they told you (e.g. 'went with a larger agency', 'found someone with more industry experience', 'went in a different direction'). Used to calibrate tone — omit if they didn't say.
future_work_angleNoA specific type of future work you'd like to be considered for (e.g. 'smaller projects', 'overflow work', 'future campaigns'). If omitted, uses a general 'future projects' ask.
project_nameNoProject name if it had a formal name (e.g. 'Project Aurora', 'the 2026 rebrand')
your_nameNoYour name for the sign-off
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the tool's behavioral traits: it does not count against the monthly draft limit, imposes a 100-word body limit, and requires a gracious and brief tone. It does not mention any sending mechanism or permissions, but for a draft email tool, the provided transparency is sufficient beyond no 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 a dense paragraph but well-structured with clear sections: purpose, tone/length, sibling distinctions, and parameter details. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully addresses the tool's complexity: it explains the scenario, required parameters, optional parameters with usage notes, constraints (100 words, tone), and relationship to siblings. No critical information 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 100%, and the description adds meaningful context for each parameter (e.g., 'reason_if_known: what they told you — used to tailor tone', 'future_work_angle: a specific type of future work you'd like to be considered for'). It clarifies optional usage beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 the tool creates a follow-up email after losing a bid, with a clear verb ('write'), resource ('professional follow-up email'), and context ('after you didn't win a competitive bid or pitch'). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like cold_pitch_follow_up, client_followup, and no_response_closure_email.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('after you didn't win a competitive bid or pitch') and when-not-to-use guidance by contrasting with specific sibling tools, stating their distinct contexts (e.g., 'no response to a cold pitch' vs. 'actively told you they went with someone else').

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