Skip to main content
Glama

overdue_project_timeline_update

Creates a proactive email to update clients when your project delivery is overdue, stating a revised deadline and honest explanation to preserve the relationship.

Instructions

Write the proactive email when YOUR delivery is running behind the agreed deadline — sent before the client has to chase you. The hardest email a freelancer has to write: most either avoid it (and let the client discover the delay themselves) or over-apologise (which damages confidence more than the delay does). This generates a clear, confident update that acknowledges the slip, gives a realistic new date, and briefly states the cause without excessive excuse-making. Tone: matter-of-fact, not panicked, not grovelling. Keeps the relationship intact. Distinct from scope_change_email (change to scope, not timeline), client_waiting_email (client chasing you for an update — reactive), and project_kickoff_email (confirming start of a new project). Does not count against your monthly draft limit. Required: client_name, original_deadline (e.g. 'Friday 20 June', 'end of this week'), new_deadline (your revised commitment), project_name. Optional: delay_reason (brief honest explanation — e.g. 'a technical issue took longer to resolve than expected', 'I underestimated the scope of the research phase'; omit for a shorter email that skips the cause), mitigation (what you're doing to prevent further slippage — e.g. 'I've cleared my schedule for the next two days to focus on this', 'I've already completed X to make up ground'), your_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesFirst name of the client
original_deadlineYesThe originally agreed deadline (e.g. 'Friday 20 June', 'end of this week', 'last Thursday')
new_deadlineYesYour revised, realistic delivery date (e.g. 'Tuesday 24 June', 'end of next week')
project_nameYesName or description of the project (e.g. 'the brand identity', 'your Q3 content plan', 'the checkout redesign')
delay_reasonNoBrief honest explanation for the delay (e.g. 'a technical issue took longer than expected', 'I underestimated the research phase'). Omit to skip explaining the cause.
mitigationNoWhat you are doing to prevent further slippage (e.g. 'I have cleared my schedule to focus on this', 'I have already completed the first half'). Adds confidence.
your_nameNoYour name for the sign-off
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: generates a clear, confident update with matter-of-fact tone. Notes that it does not count against monthly draft limit. No hidden behaviors or contradictions.

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 somewhat long but well-organized: opening purpose, sibling differentiation, tone guidance, parameter list with examples. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, tone, parameter examples, optional fields, and relationship to siblings. It is self-contained and leaves no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 significant value by providing concrete examples for each parameter (e.g., 'Friday 20 June' for original_deadline) and explaining optional parameters' purpose (e.g., omit delay_reason for shorter email). This goes beyond the schema 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 clearly states the verb (Write) and resource (proactive email), specifying the exact scenario (when delivery is behind deadline, before client chases). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming scope_change_email, client_waiting_email, and project_kickoff_email with their differences.

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: 'when YOUR delivery is running behind the agreed deadline — sent before the client has to chase you.' Provides alternative tools for different scenarios (scope change, client chasing, project kickoff), giving clear exclusion criteria.

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