Fetch sales quotes with optional filters for state or account. Narrow results to locate the exact quote records you need.
List CPQ/sales quotes with optional filters (state, account)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 25) | |
| state | No | Filter by state | |
| table | No | Explicit quote table if you know it | |
| account | No | Filter by account sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the domain 'CPQ/sales' and that filters are optional. It does not describe return format, pagination, or default behavior beyond the schema's limit default. It does not contradict annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List CPQ/sales quotes') and immediately mentions optional filters. There is no wasted text; every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 simple list tool with read-only annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It correctly identifies the resource and filters. The openWorldHint is not explained, and the description doesn't mention that results are a list of quotes, but that is implied by 'List'. Given the low complexity and rich schema, this is adequate.
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 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (limit, state, table, account). The description mentions filters for state and account but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The table parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage is correct.
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 tool's purpose: 'List CPQ/sales quotes' with optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote, which retrieves a single quote, and other list tools by specifying the resource (quotes) and the domain (CPQ/sales).
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention get_quote for single-record retrieval or any conditions for using filters. The openWorldHint is not leveraged to explain when more data might exist. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.