Skip to main content
Glama

retainer_downgrade_response_email

Write professional responses when retainer clients request reduced hours or scope. Choose to accommodate, retain, or pause the commitment to preserve the relationship.

Instructions

Write a professional response when a retainer client asks to reduce their commitment — fewer hours, a lower tier, or a scaled-back scope. One of the awkward conversations freelancers avoid, but handling it well keeps the relationship intact and sometimes reverses the decision. Three routes: 'accommodate' (accept the reduction professionally, confirm the new terms cleanly — use when the client's situation is clear and fighting it would cost more than the hours lost), 'retain' (make a measured case for keeping the current commitment — summarise the value delivered, flag transition costs, offer a short-term adjustment before a permanent change), 'pause' (propose a temporary pause instead of a permanent downgrade — protects the relationship and keeps the door open for a return to full scope). Required: client_name, reduction_request (what they asked for, e.g. 'halve the monthly hours', 'drop from 20 to 10 hours/month', 'pause for 60 days'). Optional: current_terms (e.g. '20 hours/month at $3,000'), proposed_terms (the reduced version they're asking for), retainer_name (project or retainer label), route (accommodate/retain/pause — defaults to accommodate), your_name. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesClient's first name
reduction_requestYesWhat the client asked for (e.g. 'halve the monthly hours', 'drop from 20 to 10 hours/month', 'step back to the basic tier', 'pause for 60 days')
current_termsNoOptional: your current retainer terms (e.g. '20 hours/month at $3,000', '$2,500/month for ongoing support')
proposed_termsNoOptional: the reduced terms they're proposing (e.g. '10 hours/month', '$1,500/month', 'ad-hoc only')
retainer_nameNoOptional: name of the retainer or ongoing engagement (e.g. 'the marketing retainer', 'our monthly support agreement')
routeNoOptional: 'accommodate' (accept the change professionally — default), 'retain' (make a case for keeping the current scope), or 'pause' (propose a temporary pause instead of a permanent reduction)
your_nameNoOptional: your name for the sign-off
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions 'does not count against your monthly draft limit' but does not state whether the tool sends the email or just drafts it. No mention of authorization needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a writing tool, minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the stated usage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is verbose with motivational sentences ('One of the awkward conversations freelancers avoid'). Key information is present but could be more concise. It front-loads the main purpose but includes narrative that could be trimmed without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple routes, optional parameters) and missing output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios and inputs. However, it does not explain the output format (e.g., plain text email draft) or error conditions, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the 'route' parameter's options and gives full parameter lists with clarifications. This adds meaningful guidance for using the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it writes a professional response to a retainer downgrade request. It distinguishes three routes and provides examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like retainer_check_in_email or client_decline_email, but the specific scenario is clear.

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 explains when to use each route: 'accommodate' when fighting would cost more, 'retain' to argue for keeping current scope, 'pause' for temporary pause. It gives context for when to choose each. Missing explicit 'when not to use' 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