California Insurance

Connect with licensed agents (consent required)

request_agent_contact

Connect the consumer with licensed insurance agents who can quote firm and bind. Needs the quote_id from get_quotes, the consumer's name and phone, and the consumer's explicit consent to be contacted — granted by the human, presented by you, or confirmed by the human directly at the consent URL the elicitation returns. Under scope contact_consumer up to 4 licensed agents receive the request and contact details; sell_identity additionally permits sharing with marketing partners. Nothing leaves without the consent. Every delivery and refusal is receipted, and POST /forget revokes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`consent`	Yes
`quote_id`	Yes	From get_quotes
`best_time`	No
`full_name`	Yes
`phone_number`	Yes	US mobile or landline
`verify_token`	No	Optional. From POST /v1/verify/check after the consumer enters the code texted to them. A verified number sells at the verified price and is contacted first.
`email_address`	No
`street_address`	No	Optional. Lets a licensed agent answer firm.
`preferred_channel`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses meaningful side effects beyond the annotations: up to 4 agents receive the request, scopes control marketing-partner sharing, consent is mandatory, every delivery/refusal is receipted, and revocation happens via POST /forget. This is rich behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well organized: main action, prerequisites, consent mechanics, scope, and revocation. Every sentence adds necessary operational or compliance information without filler.

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?

For a consent-gated tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation path and important side effects. Minor gaps remain around optional fields and the exact consent elicitation URL flow, but overall it is nearly complete.

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?

With schema coverage at 44%, the description compensates by explaining quote_id's origin, the consent requirement and its modes, the verified phone's effect on price/priority, and street_address's purpose. Some optional parameters like best_time, email_address, and preferred_channel are not addressed, but the key required parameters are well contextualized.

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 states a specific action—connecting the consumer with licensed agents who can quote and bind—and identifies the required prerequisite (quote_id from get_quotes). This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like check_eligibility and register_agency.

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 description gives concrete prerequisites (quote_id, name, phone, explicit consent) and explains acceptable consent paths. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is strong and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All California Insurance 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: get_quotes and check_eligibility both relate to quotes, and market_data and pull_requests both involve data access. Still, they are functionally different enough to avoid major confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_snake_case convention with action-oriented verbs (check, get, pull, register, request) or clear nouns (agency_status, market_data, data_use_terms). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for an insurance business—covering eligibility, quotes, registration, data access, and status checks. The number is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers the core workflow: eligibility, quotes, agency registration, status monitoring, and data handling. It lacks a tool for updating agency information or managing consumer consent revocation directly, but these gaps are minor given the described purpose.

Resources

Need Help?