printing.quotes.getRetrieve a quote previously created by this guest session or permanent integration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quoteId | Yes | AIURION quote UUID returned by printing.quotes.create. | |
| accessToken | No | Guest token returned by printing.sessions.start. Optional when Authorization already carries a permanent key or guest token. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about session/integration scope, but does not disclose behavior for missing or expired quotes, or any other edge-case details.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. Every word adds meaning.
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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema, good annotations, and clear sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the resource type and scope, and the schema covers the parameters.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both quoteId and accessToken are fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'a quote previously created by this guest session or permanent integration.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like printing.quotes.create and printing.quotes.update, and from other get tools by scoping to quotes.
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?
It provides clear context by specifying the quote must be 'previously created by this guest session or permanent integration,' implying it should be used after a quote has been created. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: capabilities, checkout, orders, quotes (create/get/update), and sessions. There is no overlap in purpose, so an agent can unambiguously select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent dotted pattern: printing.<resource>.<action>. Verbs are uniform (get, create, update, start) and snake_case is used throughout, making the API predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a 3D printing service, covering the main workflow (capability discovery, session creation, quote management, checkout, and order tracking) without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the core lifecycle: capabilities, session, quote CRUD (create/get/update), checkout, and order status. A minor gap is lack of explicit delete/cancel operations, but these can be worked around via update or are not essential for the stated flow.