PolicyVera insurance quotes

Undo an accepted quote

undo_accept

Destructive

Takes back the person's acceptance of a quote before the policy is bound. The quote goes back to quoted, so the person can keep comparing or accept a different quote, and the insurance agent is told in PolicyVera. When that agent holds no other accepted quote and serves the person on no other request, the permission to contact them that the acceptance gave ends. A bound policy cannot be undone here. Runs only with personConfirmed: true, after the person's explicit yes; requestId and quoteId come from check_quotes.

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>",
      "quoteId": "<quoteId>",
      "personConfirmed": "<personConfirmed>"
    },
    "name": "undo_accept"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`quoteId`	Yes	The accepted quote's id, from check_quotes.
`requestId`	Yes	The quote request's id, from check_quotes.
`personConfirmed`	Yes	true, after the person said yes to taking the acceptance back.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / personConfirmed / description
```
Added value: +"true, after the person said yes to taking the acceptance back."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / quoteId / description
```
Added value: +"The accepted quote's id, from check_quotes."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / requestId / description
```
Added value: +"The quote request's id, from check_quotes."
```
First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent; the description goes well beyond them by naming the resulting state ('goes back to quoted'), the downstream side effect (the agent is told in PolicyVera), and the conditional consequence for contact permission when the agent holds no other accepted quote. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs before committing a destructive call.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the state change, then consequences, then the hard constraint and parameter provenance. Every sentence carries information, though the final sentence compresses the consent gate and id sourcing together a bit tightly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state transition, the notification side effect, the permission revocation condition, and the failure boundary. An agent has everything needed to decide and to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including that personConfirmed must be true after the person said yes. The description reinforces the consent gate and the id provenance but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 specific verb and resource ('Takes back the person's acceptance of a quote') and immediately bounds the scope with 'before the policy is bound.' An agent can distinguish this from accept_quote or accept_agreement without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('before the policy is bound', 'after the person's explicit yes') and an explicit when-not ('A bound policy cannot be undone here'), plus where the ids come from (check_quotes). It never names the sibling to use instead (accept_quote / check_quotes) as a routing instruction, which keeps it just short of the top mark.

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

All PolicyVera insurance quotes 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?