Compare NSW green slip (CTP) prices of all six insurers with SIRA's price check - free, no sign-up.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools target clearly separate operations: compare_ctp_prices performs a new multi-step calculation, while get_green_slip_result retrieves a previously saved comparison by reference code. The descriptions explicitly state when to use each and even cross-reference the other (saved prices vs. today's prices), leaving no realistic path to misselection.
Both names follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern (compare_..._prices, get_..._result). The only wrinkle is inconsistent domain vocabulary between the two names (ctp vs. green_slip for the same product), which is readable but not perfectly uniform.
Two tools sits at the thin end of the range, but the domain is a single narrow calculator, and each tool maps to a genuine distinct need (fresh quote vs. reopen saved quote). Adding more tools would likely be padding rather than substance.
The core lifecycle is covered: elicit answers, compute prices across all six insurers, and re-open a saved result via its reference. Gaps are minor and peripheral (no insurer detail lookup, coverage explainer, or reference-from-link resolution helper), none of which block the primary workflow.
Compare NSW green slip (CTP, compulsory third party insurance) prices of all six NSW insurers - the regulated prices from SIRA's price check, the same as the greenslips.com.au calculator. Use it when someone needs a green slip: registration (rego) renewal due, buying a vehicle or bringing one to NSW, or checking whether they pay too much. Call it with the answers you have: until every needed answer is given it returns the remaining questions in order, with their options - ask the user those (never guess), then call again with all answers so far. When complete it returns each insurer's 12 and 6 month price with a link, and a link to the full result on greenslips.com.au.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gst | No | Are you a GST-registered business claiming a GST credit on this green slip? No = No, Yes = Yes | |
| use | No | Use? P = Private, B = Business | |
| make | No | Vehicle make? As SIRA lists it for the vehicle year - the tool returns the list. | |
| nrma | No | How many continuous years have you held any NRMA insurance policy? N = None, 0 = Less than 1 year, 1 = 1 year, 2 = 2 years, 3 = 3-4 years, 5 = 5-9 years, 10 = 10-24 years, 25 = 25 and over | |
| type | No | Select your vehicle type (Cars, SUVs, utes and vans up to 4.5 tonnes GVM) cu = Car or ute, 10 = Motorcycle | |
| year | No | Year of vehicle manufacture? | |
| model | No | Vehicle model? As SIRA lists it for the vehicle year - the tool returns the list. | |
| shape | No | Vehicle shape? SED = Sedan (SED), HAT = Hatchback, COU = Coupe, WAG = Station Wagon (WAG), VAN = 4 Wheel Drive Passenger Vehicle (PVF), GDS = Ute, cab chassis or van (goods vehicle), OTH = Other | |
| engine | No | Engine Capacity (cc) 225 = Motorcycle to 225cc or electric motorcycle, 226 = Motorcycle 226 - 725cc, 726 = Motorcycle 726 - 1125cc, 1126 = Motorcycle 1126 - 1325cc, 1326 = Motorcycle over 1325cc | |
| travel | No | How many kilometres does your vehicle usually travel each year? 5000 = Less than 5,000, 10000 = Up to 10,000, 15000 = Up to 15,000, 20000 = Up to 20,000, 20001 = More than 20,000 | |
| pillion | No | Will the motorcycle carry a pillion passenger? Y = Yes, N = No | |
| due_date | No | Registration due date? DD-MM-YYYY, within 3 months either side of today | |
| postcode | No | NSW postcode? | |
| other_ins | No | Do you have other insurance on the vehicle? C = Comprehensive, P = Third party property damage, N = No current insurance policy | |
| owner_age | No | Owner's age? | |
| driver_age | No | Youngest driver's age? | |
| current_ctp | No | Does the vehicle have a current green slip? Y = Yes, N3 = No - registration expired, but less than 3 months overdue, N = No - registration expired and more than 3 months overdue, NT = No - vehicle being transferred from interstate or never registered in NSW, 1 = No - new vehicle | |
| driver_years | No | How long has the least experienced driver held a licence (not including L Plate)? 0 = Less than 1 year, 1 = 1 year, 2 = 2 years, 3 = 3 years, 4 = 4 years, 5 = 5 years, 6 = 6 or more years | |
| licence_type | No | What type of Licence does the least experienced driver currently have? open = Full Licence (Australian), provisional = Provisional Licence, learners = Learners Licence, international = International Licence | |
| driver_gender | No | Youngest driver's gender? F = Female, M = Male, O = Other / Not Specified | |
| owner_company | No | Ownership? N = Individual, Y = Company | |
| valid_licence | No | Do the drivers of this vehicle hold a valid NSW driver's licence? N = No, Y = Yes | |
| clarify_region | No | Only for a postcode that spans two regions: is the vehicle kept in one of the suburbs the question lists? N = No, Y = Yes | |
| due_date_known | No | Do you know the registration due date? Y = Yes, N = Continue anyway | |
| owner_demerits | No | How many demerit points have accrued on the licence of owner/drivers? 15 = Owner/Driver is unlicensed, 16 = Owner/Driver is not licensed in NSW, 0 = 0, 1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4, 5 = 5, 6 = 6, 7 = 7, 8 = 8, 9 = 9, 10 = 10, 11 = 11, 12 = 12, 13 = 13, 14 = 14 | |
| driver_accident | No | Have any drivers had an accident in the last 2 years in which they were at fault? N = No, Y = Yes | |
| other_ins_years | No | How long have you continuously held it on this vehicle with that insurer? -1 = Less than 1 year, 1 = 1 year, 2 = 2 years, 3 = 3 years, 4 = 4 or more years | |
| current_ctp_years | No | How long have you continuously held this policy? 0 = Less than 1 year, 1 = 1 year, 2 = 2 years, 3 = 3 or more years | |
| driver_accident_3 | No | Have any drivers had an accident in the last 3 years in which they were at fault? N = No, Y = Yes | |
| driver_accident_5 | No | Have any drivers had an accident in the last 5 years in which they were at fault? N = No, Y = Yes | |
| driver_suspension | No | Have any drivers had any licence suspensions, cancellations, disqualifications or restrictions in the last 3 years? N = No, Y = Yes | |
| other_ins_insurer | No | Which insurer is the other insurance with? 26 = AAMI, 32 = Allianz, AP = APIA, AS = Australian Seniors, AG = A&G, BD = Budget Direct, CO = Coles, CI = Comminsure, 31 = GIO, HO = Hollard, 34 = NRMA, OC = OziCare, 36 = QBE, RE = Real, SH = Shannons, VE = Vero, VI = Virgin, WO = Woolworths, YOUI = YOUI, 1W = 1st for Women, XX = Other | |
| other_vehicle_ins | No | Do you have other motor insurance for any other vehicle? C = Comprehensive, P = Third party property damage, N = No current insurance policy | |
| current_ctp_period | No | Was it for 6 or 12 months? 12 = 12 months, 6 = 6 months, Not sure = Not sure | |
| current_ctp_insurer | No | Which insurer is the current greenslip with? 26 = AAMI, 32 = Allianz, 31 = GIO, 34 = NRMA, 36 = QBE, 99 = Youi, XX = Other | |
| days_per_week_usage | No | How many days per week is the vehicle used to commute to work or study? 0 = Rarely or never, 1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4, 5 = 5, 6 = 6, 7 = 7 | |
| provisional_licence | No | Do any drivers of this vehicle hold a provisional licence? Exclude learner and/or motorcycle licences. N = No, Y = Yes | |
| driver_alcohol_conviction | No | Have any drivers of the vehicle had convictions or fines imposed for alcohol or drug related driving in the last 3 years? N = No, Y = Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's real contribution is the partial-input behaviour: until all needed answers arrive it returns the remaining questions in order with their options, and only on completion does it return each insurer's 12 and 6 month price plus links. That is genuine behavioural disclosure beyond the annotations, though it omits things like failure handling for invalid postcodes or how many round-trips to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Roughly five sentences, each load-bearing: what it compares and from where, when to use it, the ask-loop protocol, and what a completed call returns. The comparison and data provenance are front-loaded, and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 38-parameter, multi-turn, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the mechanics an agent actually needs: partial invocation, the question loop, and the shape of a completed result. The remaining hole is relational — the existence and role of get_green_slip_result is never addressed, leaving tool selection under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 38 parameters at 100% schema description coverage, the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the parameterisation model itself — you need not supply everything up front, and unanswered parameters come back as ordered questions — which is meaning the schema's zero required fields does not convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
It names a specific verb and resource ('Compare NSW green slip (CTP) prices of all six NSW insurers') and even identifies the data source ('the regulated prices from SIRA's price check'). What it never does is name or distinguish itself from the sibling get_green_slip_result, so an agent has no textual basis for choosing between them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The triggers are concrete and scenario-based: rego renewal due, buying a vehicle, bringing one to NSW, or suspecting overpayment. It also gives an explicit multi-turn protocol — call with partial answers, ask the returned questions, never guess, call again — which is unusually actionable. The one gap is that no when-not condition or alternative tool is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Open a saved NSW green slip price comparison from greenslips.com.au (or compare_ctp_prices) by its Greenslips reference - the 8-character code shown with a result and at the end of its link (calculator.html?load-result=...). Use it when someone gives a reference or a result link, to see those prices again, buy or ask about them. It returns the prices as they were calculated, with that date, each insurer's link and the full result link - not today's prices: for those, compare again with compare_ctp_prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | The Greenslips reference, e.g. yLrJLjfc - or the whole result link, which ends with it |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it returns the prices as originally calculated with their date, each insurer's link and the full result link, and explicitly flags that these are historical, not current, prices. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an invalid or unknown reference.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Purpose and identifier format are front-loaded, and the alternative-tool routing closes the paragraph logically. It is a dense single block with several parenthetical asides, slightly heavier than necessary, but no sentence is filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates prices, calculation date, per-insurer links and the full result link. Combined with the staleness warning and the pointer to compare_ctp_prices, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description earns more by explaining what the reference actually is: an 8-character code shown with a result and at the end of its link (calculator.html?load-result=...). That gives the agent a way to locate or validate the value rather than just its type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Open a saved NSW green slip price comparison ... by its Greenslips reference'. It also names the sibling tool (compare_ctp_prices) in the same breath, so an agent can distinguish retrieving a stored result from running a fresh comparison without opening either schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives an explicit trigger ('Use it when someone gives a reference or a result link, to see those prices again, buy or ask about them') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative ('not today's prices: for those, compare again with compare_ctp_prices'). The when/when-not/alternative triad is fully covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
compare_ctp_prices5 fields changedInput schema / properties / due_date_known / descriptionPrevious value: -"Do you know the registration due date? Y = Yes, N = No, assume today"New value: +"Do you know the registration due date? Y = Yes, N = Continue anyway"Input schema / properties / shape / descriptionPrevious value: -"Vehicle shape? SED = Sedan (SED), HAT = Hatchback, COU = Coupe, WAG = Station Wagon (WAG), VAN = 4 Wheel Drive Passenger Vehicle (PVF), OTH = Other"New value: +"Vehicle shape? SED = Sedan (SED), HAT = Hatchback, COU = Coupe, WAG = Station Wagon (WAG), VAN = 4 Wheel Drive Passenger Vehicle (PVF), GDS = Ute, cab chassis or van (goods vehicle), OTH = Other"Input schema / properties / shape / enumPrevious value: -[
- "SED",
- "HAT",
- "COU",
- "WAG",
- "VAN",
- "OTH"
-]New value: +[
+ "SED",
+ "HAT",
+ "COU",
+ "WAG",
+ "VAN",
+ "GDS",
+ "OTH"
+]Input schema / properties / type / descriptionPrevious value: -"Select your vehicle type (Utes/Light Goods Vehicles must be less than or equal to 4.5 tonnes GVM) 1 = Motor car, 3c = Utes & Light Goods Vehicle, 10 = Motorcycle"New value: +"Select your vehicle type (Cars, SUVs, utes and vans up to 4.5 tonnes GVM) cu = Car or ute, 10 = Motorcycle"Input schema / properties / type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "1",
- "3c",
- "10"
-]New value: +[
+ "cu",
+ "10"
+]compare_ctp_pricesget_green_slip_resultCompare travel insurance quotes from 15+ insurers — Schengen, WHV, students, long stays, seniors.
Compare Australian mobile, prepaid, mobile broadband and nbn plans listed on Wireless Choices
NSW solar, battery, insulation and Home Energy Saver Loan guides. Not a lender.
Live Nigerian insurance quotes across insurers, free policy check-up, and hosted checkout links.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
