Generate a client quote with line items and optional notes; totals and tax are calculated automatically so you can send accurate estimates without manual math.
Create a quote (estimate) for a client. Totals and tax are calculated for you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| tax_rate | No | Percent; defaults to the profile rate | |
| client_id | Yes | ||
| valid_days | No | Days the quote stays valid |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that totals and tax are computed server-side, but it omits status defaults, permission requirements, and what happens to the created quote afterward.
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 sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by noting automatic calculation, though the overall brevity leaves gaps rather than excess.
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?
The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but for a 5-parameter mutation with 40% parameter coverage and no status/validation context, the description is too thin. An agent would not know whether client_id must reference an existing client or what defaults apply to the quote's validity.
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 40%, so the description should compensate but does not. It says nothing about client_id, notes, items, valid_days, or the interaction between tax_rate and the profile default, leaving key parameters documented only partially or not at all.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a quote') and clarifies the synonym ('estimate'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like create_invoice or convert_quote_to_invoice, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no guidance on when to create a quote versus when to use create_invoice or convert_quote_to_invoice, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the client already existing. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.