Quotor

Ask an agent to follow up

submit_lead

Destructive

Asks a licensed Libertas agent to follow up with the customer: for insurance Libertas doesn't quote in chat (renters, condo, landlord, umbrella, life, commercial, motorcycle, boat, RV, and more), or when a home/auto customer would rather talk to someone later. Needs what they're interested in plus an email or phone number. Creates a follow-up task; an agent typically reaches out within one business day by phone or email. Best to confirm with the customer before sending their contact details.

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
`status`	No
`lead_id`	No
`message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 1, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / lead_id
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / message
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / ok
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / status
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedJun 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only flag the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the concrete side effect ('Creates a follow-up task'), the delivery SLA ('an agent typically reaches out within one business day by phone or email'), and a PII/consent caveat. It does not explain the destructive or non-idempotent implications, so not a full 5.

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 the action, followed by routing conditions, data requirements, and outcome/SLA. Three sentences with no filler. The long parenthetical enumeration of insurance lines is the only bulk, and it earns its place as routing signal.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, required inputs, expected outcome, and a consent caveat for a 9-parameter tool. What remains unstated is minor edge behavior (what happens if both email and phone are omitted, or how notes are surfaced to the agent).

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a rule the schema does not encode: it needs 'what they're interested in plus an email or phone number' – i.e. that one of the two contact fields is required in practice even though only 'interest' is formally required. That is genuine meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Asks a licensed Libertas agent to follow up with the customer') and then bounds the scope to lines Libertas does not quote in chat plus customers who prefer later contact. This separates it cleanly from the sibling quote-lifecycle tools (start_quote, get_bind_link, check_quote_status) without needing either schema opened.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit when-to-use: insurance lines not quoted in chat (renters, condo, landlord, umbrella, life, commercial, motorcycle, boat, RV) or a home/auto customer who would rather talk later. It also states a prerequisite ('Best to confirm with the customer before sending their contact details'). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating an explicit when-not condition, which keeps it from a 5.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?