List the supplier quotes submitted for one of your inquiries (from request_quote). Returns each quote's id, unit price, total, MOQ, lead time and validity, plus acceptable_quote_ids you can pass to place_order. Requires authentication; only the inquiry's buyer (or the product's supplier) may read it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inquiry_id | Yes | The inquiry_id returned by request_quote |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: requires authentication, access limitations (only buyer or supplier), and specifics about returned fields (id, unit price, total, MOQ, lead time, validity, acceptable_quote_ids). This is informative but could mention if there are any rate limits.
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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action verb 'List', then covers output and access restrictions. Very efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: explains purpose, prerequisite (request_quote), returned fields, and authentication requirements. No gaps.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that inquiry_id comes from request_quote, which is helpful for correct parameter usage. It doesn't add syntax detail but clarifies the source of the value.
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 clearly states it lists supplier quotes for an inquiry, distinguishing it from siblings like request_quote and place_order. It specifies the action (list), the resource (supplier quotes), and the relationship to other tools.
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 explains when to use (after request_quote) and who can use (buyer or supplier). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool.
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.
