Skip to main content
Glama
yonghwan86

narajangteo-searcher

by yonghwan86

recommend_bids_for_small_it_company

Recommends prioritized IT procurement bids for small IT companies by fit score. Classifies each bid as immediate review, conditional review, or not recommended based on company profile including capabilities, budget, and certifications.

Instructions

[맞춤추천] IT 소기업 기준으로 참여 가능성 높은 공고를 100점 적합도 점수로 추천하고 '바로 검토/조건 확인 후 검토/비추천'으로 분류. companyProfile(역량·예산·인증)로 개인화.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyProfileNo회사 프로필 (미지정 시 기본 IT 소기업 프로필)
daysNo최근 N일 이내 공고 (기본 7)
maxResultsNo최대 추천 건수 (기본 20)
businessTypeNo업무구분 (기본 용역, '전체'는 5개 업무 통합)용역
openInBrowserNo결과를 별도 브라우저 창(정렬·필터 가능한 HTML 표)으로 띄울지 여부
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that recommendations are personalized via companyProfile and includes a scoring/classification system, but does not detail side effects, data sources, or whether it's read-only. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise with one sentence and a parenthetical. No redundant information; every word adds value. Front-loaded with key functionality.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description explains the core output (score and classification) but lacks full detail on output format, pagination, or error handling. It is somewhat complete for a recommendation tool but could be more explicit.

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 is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, merely reiterating that companyProfile personalizes recommendations. No parameter-specific details are added beyond what's in 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?

Description clearly states the tool recommends bids for small IT companies with a suitability score and classification. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_it_bids by focusing on personalized recommendation based on company profile.

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?

Implies usage for personalized bid recommendation but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like search_it_bids or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions provided.

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/yonghwan86/narajangteo-searcher'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server