Skip to main content
Glama
jabbawocky

ProposalCraft

by jabbawocky
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

project_feedback_request_email

Write a professional email requesting client feedback after a project. Choose feedback-only or include a soft testimonial request for satisfied clients.

Instructions

Write a professional email asking a client for feedback after completing a project. Two modes: feedback_only (default — a genuine, non-pressuring request for their thoughts; asks 1-2 specific questions to make responding easy), feedback_and_testimonial (combines the feedback ask with a soft request for a testimonial or review, framed as 'if you're happy to' — never demanding). Feedback requests sent within a week of delivery get 3x the response rate of requests sent later. The email is short, specific, and makes the client feel like their opinion matters rather than like they're being harvested for marketing content. Required: client_name, project_name. Optional: specific_question (one focused question about the project — e.g. 'Was the turnaround time what you needed?', 'Did the final copy feel like your voice?'), testimonial_platform (where you'd like a testimonial if they're happy to leave one — e.g. 'LinkedIn', 'Google', 'your website'; used only in feedback_and_testimonial mode), request_mode (feedback_only or feedback_and_testimonial), your_name. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesClient's first name
project_nameYesName or short description of the completed project — e.g. 'the website redesign', 'the Q2 content package', 'the brand identity'.
specific_questionNoOptional: one focused question you genuinely want answered — e.g. 'Was the turnaround time what you needed?', 'Did the final copy feel like your voice?', 'Were the deliverables what you expected from the brief?'. Specific questions get more useful responses than generic 'any feedback?' asks.
testimonial_platformNoOptional (used in feedback_and_testimonial mode): where you'd like a testimonial if they're happy to leave one — e.g. 'LinkedIn', 'Google', 'my website'. Keep it to one platform — multiple requests reduce follow-through.
request_modeNofeedback_only (default — genuine feedback ask, no testimonial request), feedback_and_testimonial (feedback ask with a soft, optional testimonial request).
your_nameNoYour name for the sign-off

Tool Definition Quality

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tone (non-pressuring, specific), the two behavioral modes, and that the tool does not count against a draft limit. It does not mention any destructive actions or side effects, which is appropriate for a 'write email' tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It then efficiently covers modes, timing, tone, required and optional parameters, and a practical note about draft limits. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without repetition.

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?

The description covers purpose, modes, parameters, and usage tips. Given the rich schema descriptions and absence of an output schema, it provides sufficient context for correct tool invocation. It could mention the output format (text/email draft), but the schema indicates it's a generated email, so this is a minor gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that testimonial_platform is only used in feedback_and_testimonial mode, providing the statistic about response rates, and explaining the purpose of specific_question. 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 'Write a professional email asking a client for feedback after completing a project.' The verb 'write' and resource 'email' are specific, and the two modes are explained, distinguishing it from siblings like 'feedback_request_email' and 'testimonial_request'.

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?

The description describes two modes for different scenarios (feedback only vs. feedback + testimonial) and mentions timing ('within a week of delivery gets 3x the response rate'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to siblings like 'feedback_request_email'.

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