Skip to main content
Glama

price_objection_response_email

Generate a professional email responding to a client's price objection. Choose from three routes: hold your rate, offer an alternative scope, or politely walk away.

Instructions

Write the email you send when a client pushes back on your price — 'can you do it cheaper?', 'we only have X budget', 'that's more than we expected'. Distinct from discount_request_response (which handles a specific ask for a discount — this covers any form of price objection, including vague pushback, sticker shock, and budget gaps) and budget_negotiation_email (which opens a negotiation — this responds to one already in progress). Three routes: hold_rate (defend your rate and the value behind it without apologising — default; works when you're confident in your price and the client is worth keeping on your terms), alternative (offer a reduced scope or phased approach that fits their budget — works when you want the work and can genuinely deliver something smaller), walk_away (decline clearly and warmly — works when the budget gap is too large or the engagement wouldn't be worthwhile at their number). Required: client_name, objection_summary (what they said — e.g. 'said the rate is too high', 'mentioned they only have $2k', 'asked if we can do it for less'). Optional: your_rate (your quoted rate or total — e.g. '$150/hr', '$4,500 fixed'; helps make the hold_rate response specific), their_budget (what they said they have — e.g. '$2,000', 'under $3k'), project_name, alternative_scope (for alternative route — the specific smaller version you'd offer, e.g. 'strategy and wireframes only, no build', 'phase 1 homepage only'), route ('hold_rate' | 'alternative' | 'walk_away' — default hold_rate), your_name. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesFirst name or full name of the client
objection_summaryYesWhat they said — e.g. 'said the rate is too high', 'mentioned they only have $2k', 'asked if we can do it for less'. Keeps the response specific and grounded.
your_rateNoOptional: your quoted rate or total — e.g. '$150/hr', '$4,500 fixed'. Helps the hold_rate response name the number directly rather than referring to it vaguely.
their_budgetNoOptional: what they said they have — e.g. '$2,000', 'under $3k'. Used in alternative and walk_away routes to acknowledge the gap without making the client feel judged.
project_nameNoOptional: the project name or short description — e.g. 'the brand identity project', 'your website redesign'. Adds context to the email.
alternative_scopeNoFor alternative route only: the specific smaller version you'd offer — e.g. 'strategy and wireframes only, no build', 'phase 1: homepage and contact page only', 'a 5-page site instead of 10'. Be concrete; vague alternatives feel evasive.
routeNohold_rate (default): defend your price and the value behind it — no apology, no discount. alternative: offer a genuinely smaller scope at their budget — only use when you can actually deliver something worthwhile at that number. walk_away: decline graciously — use when the gap is too large or the engagement wouldn't be worth it at their number.
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 full burden. It discloses that the tool does not count against monthly draft limits, which is a key behavioral insight. It describes the three routes and their conditions. However, it does not mention any authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects (like whether it saves drafts or sends immediately). Given the email generation context, these are less critical, but still a minor gap.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains several sentences but all are informative. A slight reduction in length could improve conciseness, but the level of detail is justified given the complexity of three routes and multiple optional parameters.

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?

The description covers all aspects: what the tool does, when to use it (with alternatives), all input parameters with examples, behavioral notes (draft limit), and three routing options. There is no output schema, but the tool is straightforward (generates an email), so the return value is implied. The description is complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the purpose of each parameter with examples (e.g., objection_summary, alternative_scope), clarifies default behavior for route, and provides context on when to use optional parameters. This significantly enhances understanding for the AI agent.

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's purpose: writing an email when a client objects to price. It distinguishes from sibling tools discount_request_response and budget_negotiation_email with specific differences. It also describes three distinct routes (hold_rate, alternative, walk_away), making the purpose very specific.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each route: hold_rate when confident in price, alternative when scope reduction works, walk_away when budget gap is too large. It also explains when to use this tool versus sibling tools, covering both when and when-not scenarios.

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