Skip to main content
Glama

working_agreement_email

Draft a friendly email that defines how you and a client will collaborate day-to-day: communication preferences, response times, revision rounds, sign-off process, and meeting cadence. Prevents project misunderstandings before they start.

Instructions

Write a short, friendly email that sets out how you and a client will work together during a project — covering communication preferences, response times, revision process, sign-off protocol, and meeting cadence. Sent before or at project kick-off, this prevents misunderstandings that kill projects mid-flow. Distinct from contract_template (legal obligations), client_onboarding_checklist (tasks to complete before starting), and project_kickoff_email (confirming that work has begun) — this is the 'how we actually work day to day' email that experienced freelancers swear by. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesFirst name or full name of the client
project_nameYesName or brief description of the project (e.g. 'the website redesign', 'your brand identity')
communication_channelNoOptional: your preferred channel for day-to-day communication (e.g. 'email', 'Slack', 'Notion comments'). Defaults to email if omitted.
response_timeNoOptional: your typical response time during business hours (e.g. 'within 24 hours', 'same day before 3pm', 'within one business day'). Defaults to 'within one business day' if omitted.
revision_roundsNoOptional: the number of included revision rounds and what counts as a revision (e.g. 'two rounds of consolidated feedback per deliverable', 'one major and one minor revision pass'). If omitted, no revision detail is included.
sign_off_processNoOptional: how you need sign-off to be given before moving to the next phase (e.g. 'a reply email confirming approval', 'a comment in Figma marked Approved', 'written confirmation by end of day'). If omitted, a simple 'written confirmation by email' is used.
meeting_cadenceNoOptional: the agreed meeting rhythm during the project (e.g. 'a weekly 30-minute check-in every Monday', 'a fortnightly review call', 'ad hoc as needed'). If omitted, meetings are described as 'as needed by mutual agreement'.
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 the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Does not count against your monthly draft limit.' It also implies the action is non-destructive and generates an email, which is sufficiently transparent for a write operation.

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 informative but slightly lengthy. It front-loads the purpose, includes sibling differentiation and the limit disclosure. A minor reduction in redundant phrasing could improve conciseness, but it is well-structured overall.

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?

For a simple email generation tool with 8 well-documented parameters (2 required) and no output schema needed, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, distinguishing features, and behavioral impact (draft limit). No gaps remain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add new parameter details beyond the schema, but it helps by explaining the email's purpose, which implicitly guides parameter selection. No additional value 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 explicitly states 'Write a short, friendly email' and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings (contract_template, client_onboarding_checklist, project_kickoff_email) by explaining what each sibling does and how this one differs. The verb (Write) and resource (email) are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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 says 'Sent before or at project kick-off' and provides explicit when-to-use context. It also lists alternative tools for different purposes (e.g., contract_template for legal obligations), offering clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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