Read one quote preset, including groups, line prices, discounts, and stored configuration.
Read one quote preset, including groups, line prices, discounts, and stored configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| presetId | Yes | ||
| projectId | No | DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden; 'Read' signals a non-destructive operation and it names what the payload includes. However, it says nothing about authorization requirements for presetId/projectId scoping or how the multi-project case behaves, beyond what the schema already states.
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 waste; the verb and resource lead and the returned content follows.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description confirms the read nature. But the undocumented presetId and absent usage routing leave it only minimally adequate for a tool sitting among many closely named preset siblings.
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 only 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, but presetId has no description and the tool description does not compensate for it. The description adds no meaning about either parameter's format or role.
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 ('Read one') and resource ('quote preset') and enumerates what is returned (groups, line prices, discounts, stored configuration). It contrasts implicitly with list_quote_presets (plural) and get_quote (quotes), but never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the distinction.
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 'Read one ...' phrasing implies a retrieval use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as list_quote_presets or get_quote. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.