Skip to main content
Glama

subcontractor_brief

Generate a clear project brief for subcontractors to define their scope, deliverables, deadlines, and payment terms, preventing scope bleed and ownership disputes.

Instructions

Generate a clear project brief for a subcontractor or VA you're bringing in for part of a project. Covers their specific scope, deliverable format and deadline, what NOT to include, payment terms, work-for-hire IP clause, and confidentiality note. Getting this right upfront prevents the most common sub problems: scope bleed, missed handoffs, and ownership disputes. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sub_nameYesThe subcontractor's first name
their_roleYesWhat they are being hired to do (e.g. 'frontend development', 'copywriting', 'graphic design', 'video editing', 'data entry')
project_contextYesBrief description of the parent project so they understand the context (e.g. 'website redesign for a 20-person accounting firm', 'brand identity for a new fintech startup')
their_scopeYesExactly what they are responsible for — be specific. Use commas or semicolons to separate items.
out_of_scopeNoOptional: what is explicitly NOT their responsibility — prevents scope bleed (e.g. 'copywriting, hosting setup, client communication')
deliverable_formatYesHow they should deliver the work (e.g. 'Figma file with organised layers', 'Google Doc with tracked changes off', 'MP4 at 1080p in a shared Drive folder')
deadlineYesWhen you need their work delivered (e.g. 'Friday 20 June by 5pm', '3 business days after kickoff')
rateYesWhat you are paying them (e.g. '$800 flat', '$75/hour, estimated 8 hours', '$400 on delivery')
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, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes generation of a brief but does not state whether the tool creates a record, sends an email, or is idempotent. The mention 'Does not count against your monthly draft limit' hints at some system interaction but lacks clarity on side effects or persistence.

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 four sentences that efficiently cover purpose, content, benefits, and a usage note. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Minor improvement could be removing the benefits sentence to be more concise, but overall it earns its space.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 9 parameters (7 required) and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the brief is delivered. It lacks details on output format, storage, or integration with other tools. The user might expect a downloadable document or inline text, which is not specified.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds high-level context (e.g., covers scope, deliverable, deadline) but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Score is baseline due to full schema coverage.

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 'Generate a clear project brief for a subcontractor or VA'. It specifies the content covered (scope, deliverable, deadline, exclusions, payment, IP, confidentiality). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like scope_of_work or subcontractor_acceptance_email.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when bringing in a subcontractor and lists common problems it prevents, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives among siblings (e.g., scope_of_work, subcontractor_acceptance_email). The note about draft limits is a usage detail but not a substitution guideline.

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