Quotor

update_quote

Idempotent

Set or refine any quote parameter except regulated enrichment fields (credit score, MVR, CLUE, VIN-decoded vehicle attributes, public-record property attributes). Idempotent — call as many times as needed; the most recent value wins. Returns which fields were applied, which were rejected (with reasons), and whether the quote has enough info to run.

WHEN TO CALL:

After collecting the required-minimum from the customer in start_quote
Whenever the customer changes their mind about any coverage, deductible, discount, payment plan, or term length
When the customer shares a declarations page and you have new values to sync

CONVERSATION STYLE for coverages (per Kyle, the agency principal): After the first rates land, walk through major coverages one-or-two-at-a-time with a soft-sell framing. Example: "You have $200,000 of personal property coverage on this quote — that's the carrier's minimum and you can only go up. Does that sound like enough for your stuff?" Let the customer pick. Then call update_quote with the new value and get_quote_options again — re-quoting is free and fast (10–60 seconds).

REGULATED FIELDS (will be rejected with structured reason): drivers[].license_number, .ssn, .mvr_, .credit_score; payment fields; carrier name; vin_decoded_attributes. The system pulls these directly from the bureaus at quote time or collects them at bind on libertasinsurance.com.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`patch`	Yes	Free-form patch onto the quote. Top-level branches: pni, drivers[], vehicles[], property, coverages, discounts, policy_terms, prior_insurance, has_mortgagee, mortgage_billed_by_lender, mortgagee, is_new_purchase, current_address (only when is_new_purchase=true — customer's address TODAY; property.address remains the home being insured), follow_ups[] (post-bind follow-up flags: {interest, note} — scheduled valuables like jewelry/art, umbrella interest, etc.; recorded for the licensed team, NEVER added to the in-flight quote). See the override matrix in the Libertas MCP docs for the full overridable field list.
`quote_id`	Yes	The quote session id returned by start_quote.
`meta_codes`	No	Optional internal meta codes; ignored unless recognized.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`applied`	No
`quote_id`	No
`rejected`	No
`completeness`	No
`ready_to_quote`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it confirms idempotent behavior ('call as many times as needed; the most recent value wins'), explains that regulated fields are rejected with structured reasons, and notes the return includes what was applied/rejected and whether the quote can run. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting 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 well-structured with headers (WHEN TO CALL, CONVERSATION STYLE, REGULATED FIELDS), making it scannable. While it's longer than some, every section serves a purpose—usage guidance, behavioral notes, and parameter clarification. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though a small trim could improve conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (free-form patch, many fields, regulated exclusions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what fields are rejectable, idempotency, return info, and even conversational examples. It does not explain return values (since output schema exists) and omits some edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for effective agent use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances the 'patch' parameter by explaining it's free-form, listing top-level branches, and adding nuanced details like 'current_address' usage and 'follow_ups' behavior. For 'quote_id', it clarifies the source (start_quote). This adds meaningful guidance 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 opens with a specific verb ('Set or refine') and explicitly identifies the resource ('any quote parameter except regulated enrichment fields'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating what it does and what it doesn't do, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The 'WHEN TO CALL' section provides three concrete scenario-based usage triggers (after start_quote, when customer changes mind, when syncing new values). While it doesn't explicitly list when NOT to call, it implies regulated fields should be handled differently, and includes a conversation style hint. This is strong guidance, though lacking direct alternatives for excluded cases.

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?