create_quote
Créer un devis
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body |
Créer un devis
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / body / properties / discount_percentAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": "100",
+ "minimum": "0",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / items / items / properties / discount_percentAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / items / items / properties / tva_rateAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations exist (e.g., readOnlyHint=false), the description does not add any behavioral context such as authentication requirements, side effects, or response behavior. Annotations alone are insufficient for complex operations.
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?
The description is extremely short (3 words), but it is under-specified and fails to provide necessary information. It is not concise in a helpful way—it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, multiple required fields) and lack of output schema, the description should explain what a quote represents and how it differs from similar entities like invoices. The current description is incomplete for effective use.
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?
The input schema covers all parameters with 100% description coverage for the top-level 'body'. However, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, and nested properties lack descriptions. Baseline is appropriate.
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 'Créer un devis' is a direct French translation of the tool name, adding no additional detail or differentiation from sibling tools like 'accept_quote' or 'convert_opportunity_to_quote'. It is essentially a tautology, failing to specify scope or unique behavior.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, preconditions, or when not to use it.
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.