OpenAccountants

Get an OpenAccountants fee estimate

get_quote

Read-onlyIdempotent

Call only when the user asks what OpenAccountants charges, requests a quote, or asks whether their current fee is fair. Returns the same published plans, service prices, limits, market exceptions and hourly rate as the website, plus the engagement process and contact details. Match the client's scope to the listed prices; incomplete scope means the total is provisional. Separately quoted services must be confirmed by OpenAccountants. This tool does not create an engagement.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	One sentence on WHY you're making this call, in the user's terms (for routing analysis only). Optional.
`services`	No	What they want, e.g. bookkeeping, vat, payroll, tax_return, year_end, formation, relocation. Logged.
`current_fee`	No	What they pay today, if they said. Logged; useful for the fairness question.
`entity_type`	No	What the client is. Logged.
`jurisdiction`	No	The client's country (ISO code or name). Logged so we know where demand is; not used to price.
`monthly_volume`	No	One line on size: transactions, orders, staff, channels. Logged, and what you scope the fee on.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rules`	Yes
`price_list`	Yes
`booking_url`	No
`next_action`	Yes
`contact_email`	No
`pricing_method`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / anchors

Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / floor

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / price_list
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "anchors",
-  "pricing_method",
-  "rules",
-  "next_action"
-]New value: +[
+  "price_list",
+  "pricing_method",
+  "rules",
+  "next_action"
+]

AddedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data mirrors the website, incomplete scope makes the total provisional, separately quoted services require confirmation, and no engagement is created. It does not mention caching/staleness or rate limits, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Five compact sentences, front-loaded with the invocation trigger before the payload description, and no filler. The one slight inefficiency is that the return-value inventory is enumerated at length even though an output schema exists, so a sentence or two partly duplicates structured data.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only pricing lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: when to invoke, what is returned, the provisional-total caveat, the confirmation requirement for separately quoted services, and the explicit statement that no engagement is created. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the reason/current_fee/jurisdiction logging semantics is already documented in the schema. The description's only added parameter guidance is 'match the client's scope to the listed prices' and the provisional-total caveat, which is useful but marginal. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an OpenAccountants fee estimate') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: published plans, service prices, limits, market exceptions, hourly rate, plus engagement process and contact details. No sibling tool deals with pricing, so an agent can route to it unambiguously from the name and description alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('only when the user asks what OpenAccountants charges, requests a quote, or asks whether their current fee is fair') and a negative boundary ('does not create an engagement'), which implicitly separates it from share_with_openaccountants/start. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for adjacent intents, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not/alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OpenAccountants tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.