Skip to main content
Glama
jabbawocky

ProposalCraft

by jabbawocky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

price_increase_email

Write a professional, non-apologetic rate increase email for clients. Supports advance notice, retainer renewal, and mid-project scenarios with customizable details.

Instructions

Write a confident, non-apologetic email notifying existing clients of a rate increase. One of the hardest emails freelancers avoid writing — and one of the most important. Gets the tone right: you're growing, not gouging. Three scenarios: 'advance_notice' (standard heads-up before the new rate kicks in — most common), 'retainer_renewal' (updating a retainer rate at renewal), 'mid_project' (rare: rate increase affecting an in-flight project — requires explicit justification). Required: client_name, new_rate, effective_date. Optional: current_rate (including it shows transparency), rate_type (hourly/daily/project — defaults to 'rate'), scenario (advance_notice/retainer_renewal/mid_project — defaults to advance_notice), project_name (for mid_project or retainer context), reason (brief, honest note on why: 'increased demand', 'cost of living', 'expanded service offering' — keep it to one line; omit if you'd rather not justify), your_name. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesClient's first name
new_rateYesYour new rate (e.g. '$150/hr', '$1,200/day', '$5,500 project')
effective_dateYesWhen the new rate takes effect (e.g. 'July 1', 'from our next project', 'at your next renewal')
current_rateNoOptional: your current rate — showing the before/after adds transparency (e.g. '$120/hr', '$950/day')
rate_typeNoOptional: 'hourly', 'daily', or 'project' — used to frame the language naturally. Defaults to a neutral 'rate'.
scenarioNoOptional: 'advance_notice' (default — standard heads-up), 'retainer_renewal' (updating a retainer at renewal), or 'mid_project' (rate change affecting an ongoing engagement — use only when unavoidable, and always include a reason)
project_nameNoOptional: project or retainer name — useful for retainer_renewal or mid_project scenarios
reasonNoOptional: one-line reason (e.g. 'increased demand for my services', 'cost of living increases', 'I've expanded what I offer'). Keep it brief. Omit if you'd prefer not to justify the increase.
your_nameNoOptional: your name for the sign-off

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv1.4.89
    • changedInput schema / properties / client_name / description
      Previous value: -"Client's first name or full name"New value: +"Client's first name"
    • changedInput schema / properties / current_rate / description
      Previous value: -"Your current rate — including it makes the change concrete and shows transparency (e.g. '$120/hour')"New value: +"Optional: your current rate — showing the before/after adds transparency (e.g. '$120/hr', '$950/day')"
    • changedInput schema / properties / effective_date / description
      Previous value: -"When the new rate takes effect (e.g. 'August 1', 'from your next project', 'in 60 days') — gives the client time to plan"New value: +"When the new rate takes effect (e.g. 'July 1', 'from our next project', 'at your next renewal')"
    • changedInput schema / properties / new_rate / description
      Previous value: -"Your new rate or pricing (e.g. '$150/hour', '$5,000/month retainer', '$2,800 per project')"New value: +"Your new rate (e.g. '$150/hr', '$1,200/day', '$5,500 project')"
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_name / description
      Previous value: -"Name of the ongoing engagement or retainer, if relevant"New value: +"Optional: project or retainer name — useful for retainer_renewal or mid_project scenarios"
    • addedInput schema / properties / rate_type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: 'hourly', 'daily', or 'project' — used to frame the language naturally. Defaults to a neutral 'rate'.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: one-line reason (e.g. 'increased demand for my services', 'cost of living increases', 'I've expanded what I offer'). Keep it brief. Omit if you'd prefer not to justify the increase.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / scenario
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: 'advance_notice' (default — standard heads-up), 'retainer_renewal' (updating a retainer at renewal), or 'mid_project' (rate change affecting an ongoing engagement — use only when unavoidable, and always include a reason)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / value_highlight
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "A specific result or achievement from your work together that anchors the value (e.g. 'tripling their newsletter open rate', 'launching three products on time and on budget') — optional but makes the email stronger",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / your_name / description
      Previous value: -"Your name for the sign-off"New value: +"Optional: your name for the sign-off"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "client_name",
-  "new_rate"
-]New value: +[
+  "client_name",
+  "new_rate",
+  "effective_date"
+]
  2. First observedv1.4.72

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not count against monthly draft limits and mentions the tone. However, it does not describe the output format, side effects, or any limitations beyond that. Adequate for a non-destructive email generation tool, but could be more transparent.

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 single paragraph that starts with the core purpose, then lists scenarios and parameters. It is well-organized and informative, though slightly lengthy. Every sentence adds value, but could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (9 params, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, scenarios, parameter guidance, and a behavioral note (draft limit). Missing is any description of what the output (the email) looks like or how it is returned. Overall fairly complete for an email generation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the three scenario options, the purpose of reason with examples, and contextualizes parameters like current_rate and project_name. This enriches the schema descriptions, making parameter selection more intuitive.

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 confident, non-apologetic email for rate increases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rate_increase_email' by specifying three scenarios and tone, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 detailed guidance on three scenarios (advance_notice, retainer_renewal, mid_project) with context on when each is appropriate. Notes that mid_project is rare and requires justification. Does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear for the intended use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools