Skip to main content
Glama

scope_creep_response_email

Respond to out-of-scope client requests with a professional email offering to quote, politely decline, or absorb the request once while protecting your business relationship.

Instructions

Write a professional email responding to a client who has requested work that falls outside the agreed project scope. The most common and most mishandled situation in freelancing — most people either give the work away for free (damages business) or say a flat no (damages relationship). Three routes: quote (acknowledge the request, confirm it's outside scope, offer to do it at additional cost — the default), decline (politely decline and redirect to the agreed deliverables), include_once (absorb this one time but set clear expectations going forward). Keeps the relationship intact while protecting your scope. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesThe client's first name
scope_itemYesThe specific thing the client asked for that is outside scope — be concrete (e.g. 'a social media graphics pack', 'SEO copywriting for the blog', 'a third round of revisions', 'a mobile version of the site')
project_nameNoOptional: the project name or description — helps situate the response (e.g. 'the brand identity project', 'the website build', 'the Q2 content retainer')
agreed_scopeNoOptional: what IS included in the agreed scope — helps frame what's outside it (e.g. 'three page designs', 'the logo and brand guidelines', 'four blog posts per month'). If omitted, the email references 'the agreed scope' generically.
quote_amountNoOptional (used with route=quote): the additional cost to include the out-of-scope item (e.g. '$400', '$200–$350', 'an additional day's rate'). If omitted, the email offers to send a separate quote.
routeNoHow to handle the request: quote (offer to do it at additional cost — default), decline (politely decline and stay on scope), include_once (absorb it this time but set expectations it's out of scope going forward).
your_nameNoOptional: your name for the sign-off
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions the tool does not count against monthly draft limit and explains route behaviors. However, does not disclose output format, potential side effects, or required permissions.

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?

Description is efficient and well-structured. It opens with purpose, explains the common problem, then lists three routes with brief rationale, ending with a benefit and a note about draft limits. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, description adequately explains the tool's logic and parameter usage. It covers the email generation intent and route options. Minor gap: does not specify expected output format (e.g., subject line, salutation) but overall sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline 3 is appropriate. Description adds context (e.g., scope_item should be concrete, route explanations) but does not significantly exceed schema-level detail.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes a professional email responding to out-of-scope requests. It specifies three handling routes (quote, decline, include_once), distinguishing it from siblings like scope_creep_email or scope_change_email.

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?

Describes common scenario (freelancers mishandling scope creep) and when each route is appropriate. Provides contextual guidance but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison with similar sibling tools.

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