swarme_tool_quotePrepare a price/access quote before running a Swarme capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| input | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent this is a preparatory quoting step, but doesn't disclose side effects, whether the quote reserves prices/access, authentication requirements, or whether the tool is read-only.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler, and the key scoping phrase ('before running') is front-loaded. It could be improved by adding parameter or usage detail, but as far as brevity it is appropriately concise.
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 tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough. The agent is left without guidance on what slug to provide, what the input object should contain, and what happens after the quote is prepared. The existence of an output schema partially covers return values, but the invocation requirements remain under-specified.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain either 'slug' or 'input'. 'Before running a Swarme capability' only loosely implies that slug identifies a capability; the nested input object is completely unaddressed. The description does too little to compensate for the empty schema docs.
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 states a clear verb ('Prepare'), a specific resource ('a price/access quote'), and its relationship to running a Swarme capability. It is distinguishable from sibling swarme_tool_run by the explicit 'before running' qualifier, though it doesn't name the sibling directly.
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 phrase 'before running a Swarme capability' gives a clear temporal context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the contrast with the run flow is evident from the wording.
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.
Tools are grouped into distinct resource families (account, AI, capabilities, discover, experiments, tool runs, uploads, vault), so most are easy to tell apart. However, multiple 'status' tools and the two Vault metadata tools (documents and summary) could be confused without reading the descriptions carefully.
All tools share a consistent swarme_ prefix and snake_case style, making them predictable. The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun, and there is a plural mismatch between swarme_capabilities_search and swarme_capability_describe, but the naming is generally coherent.
22 tools is on the heavy side and above the typical 3-15 range for a focused MCP server. While the platform covers many domains and each tool has a role, several status-related tools could have been consolidated.
Core workflows like tool runs, experiments, AI model jobs, and Vault fills are well covered. Notable gaps remain: no cancellation for AI jobs or experiments, no listing endpoints for runs/experiments, no Vault field read/delete, and the upload session has no companion completion/status tool.