Sigo Seguros car insurance quotes

Send a business's commercial auto request to Sigo

submit_commercial_application

Commercial auto, step 2 of 2: call it once, with the collected commercial_next_question returned when ready_to_submit was true. Do not call it again after it answers: a repeat is usually answered with the earlier request and already_received: true, but that is not guaranteed, and a second call can file a second request.

Sends the intake to Sigo, where a licensed agent reviews it and follows up by email. It is a request for a quote, not a quote: it returns no price, selects no policy, takes no payment and binds no coverage. Say message and disclaimer as written, and offer form_url with form_note for a customer who wants to add their vehicles and drivers now.

A refusal comes back with a code, a message for the customer and a next_step for you. One that says the request did not reach Sigo carries form_url: never tell the customer it was received.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`locale`	Yes	The language the customer is writing in. Set it from their own messages: the questions come back in it, and the request is filed in it so the Sigo agent follows up in it.
`collected`	Yes	The `collected` commercial_next_question returned when ready_to_submit was true.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	Sigo has the request. A Sigo agent follows up; nothing was quoted here.
`message`	Yes	What to tell the customer, as written.
`form_url`	Yes	The website's full commercial form, in the customer's language.
`form_note`	Yes	The line to give the customer with form_url.
`reference`	Yes	Sigo's reference for the request. Not a quote and not a policy number.
`disclaimer`	Yes	The notice every quote is subject to. Say it as written; it is the disclosure itself.
`already_received`	Yes	True when this business had already sent the same request: the earlier one is answered again, and no second one was filed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description goes well beyond them: it discloses that a repeat may return the earlier request with already_received:true but is not guaranteed, that a second call can file a duplicate request, that the process is human-reviewed with email follow-up, and that no price/policy/payment/binding occurs. It also describes refusal return shape and the form_url case.

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?

Front-loads the step framing and the single-call rule, then moves to effect, then to refusal handling. Dense but every sentence carries a load-bearing constraint; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the operational context an agent needs: sequencing, idempotency risk, what the customer should be told, and how refusals surface. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter submission tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by tying `collected` to a specific upstream state (the commercial_next_question returned when ready_to_submit was true) and by locating `locale` in the workflow. Minor added value over an already-complete schema.

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 (sends the commercial auto intake to Sigo) and explicitly frames itself as 'step 2 of 2' with the trigger condition 'ready_to_submit was true'. This distinguishes it from the sibling commercial_next_question, which produces the input this tool consumes.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('call it once, with the collected commercial_next_question returned when ready_to_submit was true') and when-not ('Do not call it again after it answers'), plus the failure mode of a repeat call. Nothing about invocation timing is left to inference.

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

All Sigo Seguros car 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?