get-quoteReturns one authorized estimate with bounded customer, status, pricing, revision, and line-item fields; addresses, notes, and terms are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote_id | No | Estimate ID returned by search-quotes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful output-contract transparency by stating the estimate is authorized, singular, field-bounded, and that addresses, notes, and terms are excluded. This goes beyond the annotations by telling the agent what it will and will not receive.
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?
The description is a single tightly written sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the exclusions in the same clause. The title 'Get Quote Tool' is not needlessly repeated.
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 single-ID retrieval with read-only annotations, the description covers selection criteria, how to obtain the ID, and the output field scope and exclusions. Minor ambiguity remains around the meaning of 'authorized' and the schema does not mark quote_id as required, but these gaps are small relative to the overall clarity.
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?
The single parameter quote_id is fully described in the schema as 'Estimate ID returned by search-quotes,' so schema coverage is 100% and the description need not add much. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already carries the meaning. The missing required declaration is a schema issue, not a description gap.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one authorized estimate' and enumerates the exact field categories included and excluded. The singular 'one' and the estimate scope clearly distinguish it from plural search tools like search-quotes and from preview-quote, preview-invoice, and get-invoice.
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?
Usage is implied: the tool returns a single authorized estimate and explicitly excludes addresses, notes, and terms, signaling when not to use it. The parameter description also tells the agent to obtain quote_id from search-quotes. However, the description never names an alternative tool for previewing quotes or retrieving the excluded fields, so the guidance is not fully explicit.
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.