list_quotes
Read-onlyIdempotent
Lister les devis
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
eyeot ERP
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details but does not contradict annotations.
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 extremely concise (3 words) with no superfluous content. It front-loads the purpose effectively, though it could be slightly more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple list operation, no parameters, and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify scope (e.g., all quotes or filtered) or return format, which could be improved.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with no parameters, so the description bears minimal burden. It does not add any context about what the list returns, but baseline 3 is appropriate per the scoring rules.
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 'Lister les devis' clearly specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'quotes', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_invoices or list_orders. However, the French language may reduce clarity for non-French agents.
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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_orders or list_invoices. The description lacks context about use cases or exclusions.
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.