Quotor

get_quote_options

Fire all eligible A-rated carriers in parallel AND kick off live rate-finishing. RETURNS IMMEDIATELY — does NOT wait.

TWO STAGES follow:

First numbers land in 30–90 seconds. Options surface as honest price RANGES — the low end is the carrier's indicative, so the final verified rate usually lands AT OR BELOW the low end.
The system keeps working for 2–10 minutes after that, logging into carrier portals and walking each competitive quote to its exact bindable rate. Option cards harden from "estimated range" to "verified" as each carrier completes. check_quote_status reports this via its 'finishing' block.

What you do during the wait: KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING with the wait-phase playbook in the system prompt (waters first, then current premium — top priority — then claims color, pets, pool, start date, payment preference). Narrate the real finishing work honestly in ONE short line when relevant; never quantify carriers or name them.

Call get_quote_options again ONLY if a rating-changing input changes (waters toggle locally — never re-fire for those).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`quote_id`	Yes	The quote session id returned by start_quote.
`max_options`	No	Maximum options to return per line (1-5, default 3).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`message`	No
`quote_id`	No
`expected_seconds`	No

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns immediately and triggers two asynchronous stages, with specific time estimates. It explains that initial options are honest price ranges and that the final rate is usually at or below the low end. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are consistent and the description adds significant behavior beyond them.

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 fairly long but structured with clear sections and bolded key points. It front-loads the immediate action and explains stages. Some repetition (e.g., stages listed twice) could be trimmed, but the density of useful information justifies the length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (asynchronous, parallel, stages, price ranges), the description thoroughly covers behavior, timing, what to do during wait, and when to re-call. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description provides complete context for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with two parameters described. The description adds context for max_options (per line) not in schema. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate, but the added context merits a 4.

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 it fires all eligible A-rated carriers in parallel and starts live rate-finishing, returning immediately. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_quote_status (which reports finishing progress) and get_option_details. The resource is 'quote options' and the verb 'get' is sufficiently specified by the elaboration.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (right after starting a quote) and when to call again (only if rating-changing input changes, with a specific exception for 'waters toggle'). It also tells what to do during the wait (keep conversation going with a prescribed playbook) and references check_quote_status for status updates.

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

All Quotor tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct step in the quoting workflow (eligibility, start, update, status, options, details, binding, resume, lead capture). Some overlap exists between get_bind_link and request_bind_inline, but descriptions clarify usage. Overall clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., check_eligibility, get_quote_options, request_bind_inline). No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools cover the insurance quoting lifecycle well. The number is appropriate for the domain without being sparse or overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the major steps: eligibility, quoting, status, options, updates, binding, and lead capture. Missing a quote cancellation or decline tool, but core workflows are complete.

Resources

Need Help?