Susman Insurance Agency quote requests

Send a quote request to Susman Insurance Agency

submit_quote_request

Send the person's answers to Susman Insurance Agency as a quote request. Only call this for a real person who asked you to and confirmed the answers, using their real name and email; never send test data. A licensed agent reviews it as soon as possible and follows up by phone or email, and the person receives an email receipt. If required questions are missing the result lists them; ask the person and send the whole request again. Limits: 10 requests per hour per network address, 3 per day per person.

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": {
      "formType": "<formType>",
      "applicant": "<applicant>",
      "consent": "<consent>",
      "answers": "<answers>"
    },
    "name": "submit_quote_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent`	No	Optional: identify yourself (the assistant or product sending this).
`answers`	Yes	Keyed by question name from get_form_questions. Choice questions take the choice text; checkbox questions take an array; dates are YYYY-MM-DD.
`consent`	Yes	Must be true: the person authorised you to send this request for them.
`formType`	Yes
`applicant`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that a licensed agent reviews the request and follows up by phone or email, that the person receives an email receipt, how missing required questions are reported, that the whole request must be resent, and the rate limits. These are substantive behavioral details for an external, non-idempotent submission.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the action and preconditions, then adds review, error handling, and limits in a compact sequence. It is somewhat dense but each sentence carries operational value.

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 complex external submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consent preconditions, side effects, follow-up behavior, error recovery for missing required questions, and rate limits. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and understand the main outcomes.

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?

The schema already describes answers, consent, formType, applicant fields, and optional agent metadata at moderate coverage. The description adds useful constraints such as real name/email, confirmed answers, and missing-question handling, but it does not materially explain formType options or the optional agent parameter beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: sending a person's answers to Susman Insurance Agency as a quote request. It clearly identifies the external submission action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling form-listing or question-retrieval tools.

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?

The description gives strong calling conditions: only for a real person who asked and confirmed the answers, using real name and email, and never test data. It does not explicitly route the agent to or away from the named sibling tools, but the preconditions are clear.

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

All Susman Insurance Agency quote requests 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?