Skip to main content
Glama

workspace-alberta

by io.github.HarleyCoops

analyze_contract_with_cohere

Use Cohere Command A+ to review a CanadaBuys tender and explain fit, risks, and next steps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNoInline business profile used for this call only. Overrides any saved profile. On the shared public endpoint without a subscriber key, this is the way to describe your business.
questionNoOptional specific question to ask about the tender
referenceYesReference or solicitation number for the tender to analyze
max_tokensNoMaximum model response tokens (default 1200, max 2000)
business_contextNoOptional company capabilities or bid context. If omitted, the saved business profile is used.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the tool modifies data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or is read-only. 'Review' implies read-only but is not explicit.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key differentiators.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and multiple sibling analysis tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how to use the profile or business_context parameters, or the role of the reference number. The agent lacks key information for correct usage.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention any parameters or how they influence the analysis. The agent must rely solely on 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 clearly states the tool's action ('review'), the specific resource ('CanadaBuys tender'), and the output ('fit, risks, and next steps'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bid_no_bid_scorecard' by specifying the use of Cohere Command A+ and focus on tenders.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bid_no_bid_scorecard' or 'summarize_contracts'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All workspace-alberta toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple search/find tools (find_opportunities, find_matching_opportunities, search_opportunities, etc.) and detail retrieval tools (get_opportunity_details, get_alberta_opportunity_details, get_contract_details). This creates ambiguity for an agent to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun convention in snake_case (e.g., search_contracts, watch_opportunity). Some deviations like bid_no_bid_scorecard use a multi-word verb, but overall the pattern is consistent.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is on the higher side for this domain. While the number could be justified by the need to handle both federal and provincial opportunities, many tools are redundant, making the surface feel heavy.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows (search, get details, watch/unwatch, set/profile, analyze) are covered. Minor gaps exist, like no batch operations or tool to clear watchlist, but the surface is largely complete for contract tracking.

Resources