SyncroMSP MCP Server

estimates_create

Create a new estimate for a customer. After creation, add line items using estimates_add_line_item.

Instructions

Create a new estimate. Note: line_items array in the create body is IGNORED by the API -- add line items via estimates_add_line_item after creation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>"
    },
    "name": "estimates_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Date
`name`	No	Estimate name
`note`	No	Note
`number`	No	Estimate number
`status`	No	Status: Fresh, Draft, Approved, Declined
`ticket_id`	No	Associated ticket ID
`line_items`	No	Array of line item objects
`customer_id`	Yes	Customer ID (required)
`location_id`	No	Location ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It truthfully reveals that the API ignores the line_items parameter, which is a critical behavioral trait beyond typical create operations. It does not cover auth, idempotency, or side effects, but the main non-obvious behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical caveat follows immediately. Every word adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, 1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and the key behavioral note. It does not describe return values, but the purpose is straightforward.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by warning that the line_items array is ignored, which is not covered in the schema. This extra context elevates the score.

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 tool creates a new estimate, immediately followed by a crucial caveat about the line_items parameter being ignored. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from siblings like estimates_add_line_item.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent that line_items in the create body are ignored and directs to use estimates_add_line_item after creation. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with a named alternative.

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

Deploy Server