TESSA Marketing & Technology

request_quote

Request a quote from a directory firm. Lighter-weight than request_introduction — explicitly framed as a budget+scope inquiry.

    firm_slug:       directory slug for the target firm
    prospect_email:  caller's email for the firm's reply
    scope_summary:   one-paragraph description of the work
    budget_band:     'under_5k' | '5k_25k' | '25k_100k' | '100k_plus' |
                     'open' — or any free-text dollar figure

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`firm_slug`	Yes
`budget_band`	No
`prospect_org`	No
`prospect_name`	No
`scope_summary`	Yes
`prospect_email`	Yes
`requested_window`	No

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 only states the basic action and a comparison but does not disclose side effects, expected outcomes, or any limitations. The parameter hint for prospect_email ('caller's email for the firm's reply') hints at behavior but is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear action sentence, a comparison sentence, and a compact parameter list with inline format hints. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core action and key parameters but lacks return value information and omits 3 optional parameter explanations. It is adequate for a simple quote request but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 4 of 7 parameters (firm_slug, prospect_email, scope_summary, budget_band) and provides useful enum values for budget_band. However, it omits 3 optional parameters (prospect_org, prospect_name, requested_window), leaving them undocumented both in the schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb+resource: 'Request a quote from a directory firm.' It also differentiates from the sibling tool request_introduction by calling it 'lighter-weight' and framing it as a budget+scope inquiry, which distinguishes its purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly names an alternative (request_introduction) and explains that this tool is 'lighter-weight' and 'explicitly framed as a budget+scope inquiry', giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TESSA Marketing & Technology tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. The get_* tools retrieve different data types (services, firm profiles, case studies, audit offerings), the request_* tools target different actions (introduction, quote, strategy session), and assess_ai_readiness and claim_listing are unique. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are all snake_case and follow a verb_noun structure, but the verbs vary (assess, claim, find, get, request) rather than using a single consistent pattern. The get_ and request_ subgroups are internally consistent, so the naming is readable and predictable despite the variety.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear function in the marketing/directory domain: discovery (find, get), engagement (request, claim), and assessment (assess, get_wcag_audit). The count is neither sparse nor overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core workflows: searching the directory, retrieving firm details and services, requesting intros/quotes/sessions, claiming listings, and checking AI readiness. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update a listing or access the compliance registry directly), but these are not likely to cause agent failures.

Resources

Need Help?