Skip to main content
Glama

change_order_email

Draft a professional change order email that formally confirms agreed additional work with scope, cost, and timeline impact, and requests written approval before starting.

Instructions

Write a professional change order email that formally confirms additional work a client has requested — scope, cost, and timeline impact — and asks for written approval before you begin. Keeps the engagement clean: no ambiguity, no verbal agreements that get disputed later. Distinct from scope_creep_email (which pushes back on unwanted additions) — this is for AGREED extra work. Does not count against your monthly draft limit. Required: client_name, project_name, change_description, additional_cost. Optional: additional_timeline, impact_on_existing_work, approval_method, your_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesFirst name or full name of the client
project_nameYesName or brief description of the project
change_descriptionYesWhat the additional work involves (e.g. 'Add a third landing page variant', 'Integrate a third-party booking system', 'Extend the site to include a blog section with 3 post templates')
additional_costYesThe cost for the additional work (e.g. '$800', '$1,200 + GST', '4 hours at $150/hr')
additional_timelineNoOptional: how much extra time is needed (e.g. '3 additional business days', '1 week', 'no change to existing deadline'). If omitted, timeline section is skipped.
impact_on_existing_workNoOptional: any knock-on effect on the existing project scope or timeline (e.g. 'The current go-live date will shift by 3 days', 'No impact on existing deliverables'). If omitted, this section is skipped.
approval_methodNoOptional: how the client should approve (e.g. 'Reply to this email with Approved', 'Sign the attached document', 'Reply with your approval'). Defaults to 'Reply to this email with your approval' if omitted.
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 provided, so description carries full transparency burden. It notes the tool does not count against monthly draft limit and that it generates an approval request. However, it does not clarify whether the email is drafted or sent, leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

Highly concise: 5 sentences covering purpose, benefit, sibling distinction, behavioral trait, and parameter listing. No wasted words, well-structured.

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?

Provides sufficient context for a simple email generation tool: purpose, usage, key parameters, and an important behavioral note. Lacks explicit mention of output format (draft vs. sent), but overall adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. Description adds value by listing required/optional groups but does not significantly augment schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes a change order email to confirm additional work with scope, cost, and timeline impact, and asks for written approval. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool scope_creep_email, providing a specific verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for agreed extra work, and identifies alternative tool (scope_creep_email) for unwanted additions. Provides clear guidance on context.

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