getAutoQuotesRun the full auto insurance quoting pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auto_input_json | Yes | JSON string of the full AutoInput model. Required keys: garaging_address, drivers[], vehicles[], coverage See engine/validator.py AutoInput for full schema. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It only says 'run the full pipeline' and does not state whether the call is read-only, mutates state, calls external systems, requires eligibility first, or returns structured quotes. There are no behavioral traits disclosed beyond a vague process noun.
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 brief and front-loaded, which is good, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient compression. The single sentence states the action but leaves important operational detail unstated.
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?
For what is described as a full quoting pipeline, this is incomplete: no prerequisites, expected behavior, side effects, or relation to the sibling tools. An output schema may describe return values, but it cannot compensate for the missing operational context an agent needs to call this complex tool correctly.
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 already covers the single parameter with a detailed description and required keys, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 names a specific action ('Run') and resource ('full auto insurance quoting pipeline'), and the word 'auto' separates it from the home/eligibility siblings. However, it is a little vague because it describes the pipeline rather than the actual result (insurance quotes), so it is not a 5.
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?
There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus checkEligibility or getHomeQuotes. The word 'auto' only weakly implies the distinction, and no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are 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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: checkEligibility is a lightweight pre-screening step, while getAutoQuotes and getHomeQuotes are full pipeline executions for different insurance products. There is no overlap in intent.
All tools use camelCase and begin with a verb (check/get), which is consistent. The minor variation between 'check' and 'get' is acceptable but slightly less uniform than a single verb convention.
Three tools form a focused, minimal surface for an insurance quoting server. Each tool covers a distinct stage or product line, and no tool feels redundant or unnecessary.
The set covers eligibility pre-check and two quoting pipelines, which aligns with the stated purpose. Missing operations like quote status or comparison are minor gaps and not critical for the apparent scope.