Quarterline: Grease trap pumping for Austin restaurant groups, on one 90-day calendar

Send the requirement

send_requirement

Idempotent

Send the requirement to Quarterline once the buyer says to: the first send records the request (its receipt token is the requirement's token, for request_status and offers); a later send of a changed requirement records a revision of the same request. Name the revision the buyer saw. This orders nothing: an offer comes later and is accepted separately on its exact terms.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "token": "<token>",
      "revision": "<revision>"
    },
    "name": "send_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The requirement id from an earlier answer
`op_id`	No
`token`	Yes	Its private token (also the receipt token of the request it is sent as); keep it private
`action`	No	What the buyer wants done (default quote): to buy, lease, verify...
`contact`	No
`revision`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds real state semantics: what gets created (a request with a receipt token that also serves request_status and offers) and what does not happen ('This orders nothing'). It still says nothing about failure modes, invalid tokens, or what a caller gets back, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition; every sentence carries distinct information (trigger, first-vs-later semantics, non-commitment). The parenthetical about the receipt token is dense but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers lifecycle semantics well but leaves contact details, op_id, and the return value (presumably the request/revision identifier) unexplained. An agent could call it correctly but not fully predict the response.

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 50%. The description clarifies two of the six parameters well: token is the receipt token reused for request_status and offers, and revision must be the one the buyer saw. op_id and the contact object remain undocumented in both schema and description, so the description adds value but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (send) and resource (the requirement) plus the destination (Quarterline), and it distinguishes the first send from a later send of a changed requirement. It does not explicitly separate itself from close siblings like submit_request or edit_requirement, so an agent must still infer which of those it wants.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition ('once the buyer says to') and sequencing guidance (first send records the request, later send records a revision). It never names alternatives or exclusions, such as which sibling to use to alter a requirement without sending it, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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

All Quarterline: Grease trap pumping for Austin restaurant groups, on one 90-day calendar tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?