quote_getReturn one quote in full by Q number or exact client name: lines with unit price and VAT, totals, dates, the state today with days left, notes, and the invoice it became once accepted. Reads only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Quote id such as Q-2026-0001, or an exact client name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return-level transparency: lines, VAT, totals, dates, current state with days left, notes, and the accepted invoice linkage. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs every important detail into one list. Each clause earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.
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 a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains the input and enumerates the returned quote contents, including dynamic state and downstream invoice linkage. Nothing critical is missing.
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 mirrors the schema's id meaning: Q number or exact client name. It adds no new format or behavior detail beyond what the input schema already documents.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Return one quote in full'. It also gives the lookup key (Q number or exact client name), and the singular 'one quote' distinguishes it from quote_list and other siblings.
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?
The description makes the use case clear: retrieve complete details for a single known quote. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over list/pdf/report siblings.
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.