Quotor

request_bind_inline

Submit the customer's bind request from the chat. Triggers an internal task for our licensed team to follow up. THIS IS NOT INSTANT BIND — no payment is collected and no coverage starts from this call; a licensed agent completes underwriting verification, payment, and carrier confirmation afterward, and the customer can still change or cancel the request. Because this step is non-binding and reversible, the customer's own clear choice ("I'd like to go with Carrier A", "let's do A and A", "I'll take Carrier B") is sufficient confirmation to submit — an additional "are you sure?" prompt is not required, though you should always honor your own platform's confirmation practices. NEVER name a real carrier in chat output — stay in "Carrier A/B/C" labels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pay_plan`	No	Pay plan: 'monthly_eft' or 'pay_in_full' (required when an auto line is included).
`quote_id`	Yes	The quote session id.
`best_time`	No	Best time to reach the customer, e.g. 'weekday afternoons'.
`option_id`	No	The single option to bind (or use option_ids for a bundle/split).
`option_ids`	No	Multi-option bind. Either option_id or option_ids must be provided.
`contact_pref`	No	How the customer prefers to be reached: 'call', 'text', or 'email'.
`customer_notes`	No	Optional free-text notes from the customer for the agent.
`water_selections`	No	Customer-selected water-coverage add-ons for home options (service line, water seepage, foundation water, sewer backup); the agent configures these at the carrier portal at bind.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bind_url`	No
`quote_id`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that it triggers an internal task, is non-binding, reversible, no payment collected, and requires agent follow-up, adding value beyond annotations which only set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, but contains some conversational guidance that could be tighter. Still well-structured and informative.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With 8 parameters and nested objects, the description covers behavioral context well and output schema exists. However, it could mention the output more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description does not add additional meaning beyond schema descriptions; it only mentions pay_plan requirement inline but schema already covers it.

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 'Submit the customer's bind request from the chat' and distinguishes from siblings like get_bind_link and submit_lead by emphasizing this is routing to an agent, not instant bind.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (customer expresses clear choice), what not to do (not instant bind, don't name real carriers), and provides guidance on confirmation practices.

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?