Show what a proposal would contain for a record — title, customer, price, pricing lines and tiers — without creating it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tiers | No | Offer only these option tiers (ids from list_proposal_templates); default all | |
| template | Yes | Template id (pdf_group_id) or title, from list_proposal_templates | |
| arguments | No | The template's arguments, e.g. {job_id: 42} — plain values only |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by enumerating what the preview surfaces (title, customer, price, pricing lines, tiers) and reiterating that nothing is created, which is the key behavioral guarantee for a preview tool.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the critical non-persistence guarantee. No filler, nothing redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so by listing the fields a preview contains. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination or error behavior for invalid templates is unaddressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so template, tiers, and arguments are all documented in the schema itself. The description mentions tiers and price content but adds no format, sourcing, or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb (show/preview) and resource (a proposal) and clarifies it is a dry-run that does not persist anything, which separates it from creation tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as list_proposals or generate_estimate, but the scope is clear enough to select it confidently.
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?
The phrase 'without creating it' implies a preview-before-creation use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_proposals or the actual create path, and no prerequisites are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.