in_get_quoteFetch a complete quote by ID, including line items and client relationship. Use it to review quote details, pricing, and associated client data before invoicing or follow-up.
Fetch a full quote by id, including line items and the client relationship.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Quote id. | |
| include | No | Defaults to 'client'. e.g. 'client,invoices'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add that the result is 'full' and enumerates the included relations, which tells the agent roughly what comes back. However, it says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown (error vs empty), nor that the `include` parameter alters what 'full' actually means.
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 with no filler: verb, resource, identifier, and the payload scope all arrive in order of importance. Nothing is restated or padded.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, this is close to sufficient — it says what the object is and what it carries. The one real gap is that the `include` parameter's effect on the returned payload is left entirely to the schema, and with no output schema the agent gets no further detail on the response shape.
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 both parameters are described there, including the 'client,invoices' example for `include`, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of line items and the client relationship only loosely hints at what `include` toggles, adding little beyond the schema.
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 ("Fetch a full quote by id") and adds scope detail — line items and the client relationship — that separates it from in_list_quotes. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the 'by id' retrieval framing makes the distinction against the list tools self-evident.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to call when it already has a quote id and needs full detail rather than a summary row. There is no statement of when to prefer in_list_quotes instead, no prerequisite note, and no guidance on when to pass an id versus searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.