quote_historyList your recent freight quotes (LTL, van, box truck, FTL) from all sessions. Useful for surfacing prior pricing on similar lanes. Auth required.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "quote_history"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that authentication is required, going beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or how 'recent' is defined. With annotations already indicating a safe read operation, the description provides minimal additional transparency.
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 concise—two sentences front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or wordiness, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 parameterless list tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and authentication. It could clarify what 'recent' means (e.g., time range) or whether results are ordered, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description is largely complete and sufficient.
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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details because there are none. It could have set expectations for the output format, but the dimension focuses on parameters, so the score remains at baseline.
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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'recent freight quotes', specifying the modes (LTL, van, box truck, FTL) and scope 'from all sessions'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that create individual quotes or fetch specific details.
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 provides a clear use case ('surfacing prior pricing on similar lanes'), which guides when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, the context implies it is for historical review rather than new quotes or bookings.
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.