convert_opportunity_to_quote
Convertir une opportunité en devis
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| opportunity_id | Yes | (path parameter) |
eyeot ERP
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are present but only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description does not disclose whether the original opportunity is modified, if a new quote is created, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, resulting in an inadequate explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description should explain key behaviors like whether the opportunity is converted in-place or a new quote is created. The current French description lacks this context, making it incomplete for an English-speaking AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'opportunity_id', but the description adds no extra meaning; the schema description '(path parameter)' is minimal. The tool description does not clarify the parameter's role or format.
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 'Convertir une opportunité en devis' clearly states the action (convert) and the resources (opportunity to quote). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_quote and invoice_from_quote. However, it could be more specific about what the conversion entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_quote or invoice_from_quote. The agent is left to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions (e.g., create_client vs. list_clients). However, generic tools like eyeot_call overlap with many specific tools, and there's potential confusion between convert_opportunity_to_quote, create_quote, and accept_quote, though descriptions help distinguish them.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority follow verb_noun pattern (create_client, list_invoices), but there are outliers like eyeot_call, eyeot_help, stock_dashboard, dashboard_kpis, whoami, and search. The mix of French and English is consistent but slight inconsistency in structure.
Tool Count4/5
33 tools cover multiple ERP modules (CRM, HR, inventory, sales, IT). While on the higher end, each module has necessary operations. The presence of generic eyeot_call suggests the tool surface could be larger, but the count is still reasonable for the scope.
Completeness2/5
Only clients have update and no deletes exist. Many resources (products, employees, orders, quotes, invoices, opportunities, tickets) lack update/delete operations. This creates dead ends for agents that need to modify or remove data.