List customer share links for a quote to identify its standard share path and rich experience Desk path.
List customer share links for a quote. classicPath is the standard share; experiencePath is the rich experience Desk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quoteId | Yes | ||
| projectId | No | DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionPrevious value: -"DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project)"New value: +"DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectId",
- "quoteId"
-]New value: +[
+ "quoteId"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at returned data by naming classicPath and experiencePath, adding some behavioral context, but it does not disclose permission requirements, whether shares are always present, pagination, or the auth implications of the projectId scoping.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Front-loading the purpose before the classicPath/experiencePath detail is good structure, though those two terms are cryptic and unexplained.
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 small read tool with no output schema, the basics are present, but with 50% schema coverage the description should clarify the required quoteId and what classicPath/experiencePath represent. It leaves the agent with an under-explained return 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 description coverage is only 50%: projectId is documented in the schema but quoteId is not. The description never mentions quoteId or projectId, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter. It adds no parameter meaning 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ("List customer share links for a quote"), which is distinguishable from the mutation siblings create_quote_share and patch_quote_share. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the read/list scope is unambiguous.
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 tool lists share links for a given quote. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_quote), and no conditions or exclusions. Adequate but thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.