Skip to main content
Glama

budget_negotiation_email

Write professional emails to negotiate when a client's budget falls short of your quoted price, offering scope reduction, rate hold, or middle-ground proposals while preserving the relationship.

Instructions

Write a professional email responding when a client's budget falls short of your quoted price. Three strategic routes: 'scope_reduction' (offer a trimmed version of the project at your full rate), 'hold_rate' (explain why the rate stands and decline to move on price), or 'middle_ground' (propose an adjusted arrangement — phased delivery, reduced scope with option to expand, or flexible payment terms). Keeps the relationship warm regardless of outcome. Distinct from discount_request_response (flat refusal), competitor_response_email (price comparison objection), and change_order_email (agreed additions). Does not count against your monthly draft limit. Required: client_name, your_quoted_price, client_budget, response_route. Optional: project_name, what_can_be_cut, middle_ground_offer, your_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesFirst name or full name of the client
your_quoted_priceYesYour original quoted price (e.g. '$5,000', '$4,800 + GST', '$3,500')
client_budgetYesThe budget the client stated (e.g. '$3,000', 'around $2,500', 'under $4,000')
response_routeYesHow you want to respond: 'scope_reduction' (offer reduced scope at full rate), 'hold_rate' (politely decline to move on price), or 'middle_ground' (propose a creative arrangement)
project_nameNoOptional: name or brief description of the project
what_can_be_cutNoOptional (for scope_reduction): what elements could be removed or deferred to bring the project within their budget (e.g. 'Remove the blog section and delay the email integration to phase 2', 'Reduce from 5 pages to 3 core pages')
middle_ground_offerNoOptional (for middle_ground): the specific arrangement you're proposing (e.g. 'Phase the project over two invoices', 'Start with the homepage and booking page now, add the remaining pages next quarter', '50% upfront and 50% at 60 days')
your_nameNoOptional: your name for the sign-off
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not count against the monthly draft limit and that it keeps the relationship warm, but does not clarify if the email is automatically sent or just drafted. The behavioral traits of the output (draft vs. send) are not fully specified.

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 with two main sentences, front-loading the purpose and routes, then covering key details (distinctions, draft limit, required/optional params) efficiently. No superfluous text.

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 complexity of 8 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: explains all parameters' purpose, gives examples, names sibling alternatives, and clarifies a behavioral trait (draft limit). It is complete for the agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the role of each parameter in context of the three routes (e.g., what_can_be_cut for scope_reduction, middle_ground_offer for middle_ground) and providing examples of acceptable 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 clearly states the tool writes a professional email for a specific scenario (client budget shortfall) and outlines three strategic routes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming them (discount_request_response, competitor_response_email, change_order_email), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (when client budget falls short), the three response routes with brief explanations, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools, providing clear alternatives.

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