Skip to main content
Glama

Propose: Make an invoice from a quote

propose_convert_estimate

AI Agents (inside one system): Use when the person asks for this in a system whose AI agent may change records: A new invoice with the lines of a quote, linked to it and not sent; nothing is made when the quote already has one. Give one item per record, at most 25. Nothing is written yet: the answer shows, per record, what it holds now and would hold after, plus a proposal id. Show it to the person, say so first when something would be sent to the people in their system, ask whether to go ahead, and only then call apply_proposal; when needsApproval is true, share the approve link instead. Not for reading (use search_records or get_record).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "system": "<system>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "propose_convert_estimate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesOne object per record, at most 25.
systemYesWhich AI agent: the system's id from get_ai_agent_options, or the name of the system or its connection. Ask the person which AI agent they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noticeNo
changesYes
systemIdYes
warningsYes
expiresAtYes
approveUrlYes
proposalIdYes
systemNameYes
needsApprovalYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / system / description
      Previous value: -"Which AI agent: the system's id from get_ai_agents_info, or the name of the system or its connection. Ask the person which AI agent they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself."New value: +"Which AI agent: the system's id from get_ai_agent_options, or the name of the system or its connection. Ask the person which AI agent they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it says nothing is written yet, that the answer contains a per-record before/after diff plus a proposal id, that outbound messages to people require a prior warning, and that no invoice is produced when one already exists. These are workflow and side-effect facts the hints (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the trigger condition and purpose before the safety instructions, with zero filler sentences. The opening phrase "AI Agents (inside one system): Use when the person asks for this in a system whose AI agent may change records" is somewhat convoluted and could be stated more directly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description still covers the proposal/apply lifecycle and the approval branch. It stops short of failure modes (invalid quote id, exceeded item count, permission errors), which would matter for a two-system mutation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description mostly restates it ("one item per record, at most 25" mirrors maxItems/minItems). It adds no extra meaning for the 'system' argument or for how item ids are resolved, so the schema carries the load and the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and outcome: creates an invoice carrying the quote's lines, linked to the quote, unsent, and skipped when the quote already has an invoice. That level of specificity distinguishes it from neighbors like propose_convert_lead or propose_create_item without opening their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly frames the condition of use (a system whose AI agent may change records), the exclusion ("Not for reading (use search_records or get_record)"), and the mandatory follow-up path: show the diff, ask for confirmation, then call apply_proposal, or share the approve link when needsApproval is true.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources