Skip to main content
Glama

project_scope_reduction_email

Write a proactive email to propose a project scope reduction when over budget or time. Offer concrete options: trim to core, phase remaining work, or close cleanly.

Instructions

Write the email proposing a scope reduction when a project is running over budget or time — you're catching it proactively and offering a clean path rather than letting it overrun or blow up. This is a distinct moment: you're the one raising the issue before it becomes a crisis, and you're offering a concrete proposal (not a vague warning). Three routes: reduce_to_core (trim the scope to the minimum viable deliverable, explicitly stating what stays and what's cut — use when the cut is straightforward and the core is still valuable on its own), phase_it (deliver the agreed core now and scope the remainder as a future phase with a separate budget — use when the client will still want the rest and you want to preserve the relationship and future work), stop_here (deliver what exists now and close the project cleanly — use when continuing clearly doesn't serve the client, when the project has run its course, or when it's better to end well than drag on). Distinct from scope_creep_email (client adding uncosted work), budget_negotiation_email (negotiating budget before work starts), and mid_project_cancellation_response_email (client-initiated stop). Does not count against your monthly draft limit. Required: client_name, reason (what's driving the reduction — e.g. 'we're tracking 30% over budget due to unexpected API complexity', 'the timeline has compressed and the full scope no longer fits'), proposed_reduction (what you're proposing to cut or defer — be concrete). Optional: project_name, current_completion_percentage, phase_2_scope (for phase_it route — what goes into the next phase), route ('reduce_to_core' | 'phase_it' | 'stop_here' — default reduce_to_core), your_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesFirst name or full name of the client
reasonYesWhat's driving the scope reduction — be honest and specific. E.g. 'we're tracking 30% over the original budget due to unexpected complexity in the payment integration', 'the timeline has compressed from 8 weeks to 5 and the full scope no longer fits'. Used directly in the email so the client gets a clear picture.
proposed_reductionYesWhat you're proposing to cut or defer — be concrete. E.g. 'remove the admin reporting dashboard (items 4–6 in the brief) and deliver the core user flow only', 'defer the mobile-responsive build to a second phase and ship the desktop version now', 'deliver the three core sections and treat the integrations as a follow-on project'.
project_nameNoOptional: the project name or short description — adds context to the email.
current_completion_percentageNoOptional: how far through the project you are, as a percentage (0–100). Used to give the client a sense of where things stand.
phase_2_scopeNoOptional (recommended for phase_it route): what would go into the next phase. E.g. 'the admin dashboard, reporting exports, and mobile-responsive build — scoped as a separate engagement once phase 1 is live'.
routeNoreduce_to_core (default): trim to the minimum viable deliverable, stating explicitly what stays and what's cut. phase_it: deliver core now, scope the remainder as a future phase. stop_here: deliver what exists and close cleanly.
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 email is proactive, offers a concrete proposal, and does not count against the monthly draft limit. However, it doesn't mention authorization needs or rate limits, which are less critical for a draft tool 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 long but well-organized, with a clear front-loaded purpose and structured route explanations. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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 (8 parameters, 3 routes, many siblings), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter details, route options, and sibling differentiation. There is no output schema, but the description adequately explains the email's behavior, making it complete.

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 significant value by explaining each parameter's role with concrete examples (e.g., reason examples like 'tracking 30% over budget due to unexpected API complexity'). It also clarifies default values and route-specific usage, going well beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Write the email') and clearly identifies the resource ('proposing a scope reduction'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like scope_creep_email and budget_negotiation_email, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use scenarios ('catching it proactively... before it becomes a crisis') and when-not-to-use by contrasting with siblings. It also details three route options with clear use cases for each, offering actionable guidance.

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