Quotor

submit_lead

Capture a lead for an insurance product Libertas doesn't quote inline (renters, life, commercial, motorcycle, boat, RV, umbrella, condo, landlord, etc.) — OR any home/auto customer who asks to be contacted later instead of finishing the quote in chat. Creates a row in the CRM Leads bucket so a licensed agent can follow up.

CALL THIS WHEN:

The customer asks about an insurance type other than home/auto/bundle, AND has shared a name + email or phone. Confirm with the customer that you're going to have someone reach out, then call this tool.
The customer says "have someone call me later" or similar even on a home/auto inquiry.
The customer mentions an unusual circumstance and wants a human follow-up.

DO NOT CALL WHEN:

The customer is still actively answering questions in the home/auto intake flow — keep going through the regular intake.
You don't have any contact info yet — ask for name + email/phone first.

What it does: writes a Leads row tagged with the line of interest, contact info, preferred follow-up time, and any notes you supply. A licensed Libertas agent will reach out within one business day. Returns a confirmation message you can paraphrase to the customer ("you're on our list — someone from the team will reach out about [interest]").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Customer email.
`notes`	No	Optional notes for the follow-up.
`phone`	No	Customer phone number.
`interest`	Yes	What the customer wants us to follow up about (e.g. 'renters insurance', 'life insurance', 'commercial auto')
`quote_id`	No	Optional quote id to associate the lead with.
`last_name`	No	Customer last name.
`first_name`	No	Customer first name.
`preferred_contact_time`	No	e.g. 'weekday afternoons', 'after 5pm', 'tomorrow morning'
`preferred_contact_method`	No	How the customer prefers to be reached: 'phone', 'email', 'text', or 'any'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool creates data (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false). The description adds context about CRM storage and follow-up timing, but could mention potential duplicate creation or error states.

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 thorough with clear sections, though slightly verbose with repeated statements about what it does. Structure is good but could be tightened.

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?

Covers when to use, what it does, and general parameter roles. With an output schema existing, return details are sufficient. Misses error handling or rate limits, but overall complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds usage context (e.g., need contact info) but doesn't enhance parameter meaning 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 clearly specifies the tool captures leads for insurance products not quoted inline or when customers request later contact. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_quote and check_eligibility by focusing on lead submission rather than quoting or eligibility.

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 'CALL THIS WHEN' and 'DO NOT CALL WHEN' sections provide detailed conditions, including customer consent and contact info requirements. This leaves no ambiguity about appropriate use.

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?