Skip to main content
Glama

client_brief_template

Send a structured client brief questionnaire to collect project goals, timeline, budget, and success criteria upfront. Prevents scope creep and ensures clear expectations before drafting a proposal.

Instructions

Generate a structured client brief questionnaire to send to a new or prospective client before starting work. Prevents scope creep and 'bad brief' problems by collecting project goals, timeline, budget, stakeholders, and success criteria upfront. Use this at the very start of an engagement — before drafting a proposal or setting a price. Does not count against your monthly draft limit. Optional: project_type (e.g. 'website redesign', 'brand identity', 'copywriting project'), client_name, your_name, include_budget_question (defaults true), format ('email' to embed in a covering email, 'doc' for a standalone questionnaire to paste into a shared doc).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_typeNoThe type of project (e.g. 'website redesign', 'brand identity', 'copywriting', 'app development'). Helps tailor the questions to the engagement. Omit for a general-purpose brief.
client_nameNoClient's first name for the email greeting
your_nameNoYour name for the sign-off
include_budget_questionNoWhether to include a direct budget question. Some freelancers prefer to handle budget in a call rather than upfront in writing. Defaults to true.
formatNo'email' (wraps the questionnaire in a covering email — default) or 'doc' (returns a clean standalone questionnaire to paste into Google Docs, Notion, or a PDF).
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions it doesn't count against draft limit, but does not disclose whether it saves or stores data, or if it has side effects beyond generating text.

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 front-loaded with main purpose and is reasonably concise at ~160 words, though some phrases like 'prevents scope creep and 'bad brief' problems' could be trimmed.

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?

Covers use case, timing, and parameters well. However, lacks description of output structure (e.g., format of the questionnaire) despite no output schema, which would help an agent understand what to expect.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The overall description adds context like defaults and format options, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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 'Generate a structured client brief questionnaire' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by clarifying its use at the start of an engagement before proposals.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this at the very start of an engagement — before drafting a proposal or setting a price.' Lacks explicit alternatives but context implies it's for new client onboarding.

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