quote_declineMark a quote lost, with a reason kept on the record, freeing a free-tier open slot and counting in the win rate. An accepted quote is refused, naming the invoice it became. Free on every tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Quote id such as Q-2026-0001 | |
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today | |
| reason | No | Why it was lost, e.g. "price" or "went in-house". Kept on the record |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare the safety profile (mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds behavior they do not cover: the reason is retained, a free-tier slot is freed, the action affects win-rate statistics, and the call is free on every tier. It also describes the rejection path and what it returns in that case (the invoice the quote became).
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effects, then the failure case, then cost. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the return burden; it describes the refusal behavior but not the success response shape. Given a three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, what it does provide (side effects, precondition, pricing) is nearly complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates schema facts: reason "kept on the record" mirrors the reason field description, and the date default is already documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries parameter meaning.
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?
Specific verb and resource: "Mark a quote lost" with the reason persisted on the record. It also states side effects that clarify the operation (frees a free-tier open slot, counts in win rate) and distinguishes it from the inverse sibling behavior by noting accepted quotes are refused.
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?
Gives a clear precondition/exclusion: an accepted quote is refused, so the agent knows this only applies to open quotes. It does not explicitly name a sibling to use for other cases (e.g. quote_accept / quote_update), but the context is sufficient for selection.
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.