Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

Housecall Pro MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

housecallpro_get_estimate

Read-only

View a contractor's estimate by pasting the Housecall Pro link: returns line items, totals, tax, company details, and whether it still awaits your approval.

Instructions

Read an estimate a Housecall Pro contractor sent you: line items, totals, tax, the company behind it, and whether it is still awaiting your approval. The default compact view returns money both as integer cents (*_cents, verbatim from the API) and as dollars (*_usd); view: "raw" returns the upstream document, whose money is cents only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linkNoThe Housecall Pro link your contractor sent you — paste it directly (pro.housecallpro.com/mobile_estimate/… or /mobile_invoice/…, or a client.housecallpro.com/estimates/… or /invoices/… URL), or the retrieval token from the end of it. Alternatively the label of a link configured in HOUSECALLPRO_LINKS. Omit only when exactly one link is configured.
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "raw" returns the upstream payload unprojected. "compact" is the summary: line items, totals, tax, company and approval state, with every money field as both `*_cents` and `*_usd`. "raw" is the upstream document (~4.8 KB, mostly display flags and `{object, data}` wrappers) — its money is integer CENTS with no dollar sibling, so `total_amount: 34639` means $346.39.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / raw
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Return the full upstream document instead of the summary. Much larger, and mostly display flags.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"raw\" returns the upstream payload unprojected. \"compact\" is the summary: line items, totals, tax, company and approval state, with every money field as both `*_cents` and `*_usd`. \"raw\" is the upstream document (~4.8 KB, mostly display flags and `{object, data}` wrappers) — its money is integer CENTS with no dollar sibling, so `total_amount: 34639` means $346.39.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "raw"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the compact view returns both cents and dollars, the raw view returns upstream document with cents only, and it notes the raw size (~4.8 KB). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the primary purpose and content front-loaded in the first sentence and the view options compactly explained in the second. No wasted words or redundant phrases.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape. It does so thoroughly for both compact and raw views, including the money format difference. Minor omissions like error handling or not-found behavior are acceptable given the read-only nature and schema coverage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both link and view are already well documented. The description reiterates the view behavior (compact vs raw) and money representation, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('an estimate') and enumerates the contained data (line items, totals, tax, company, approval state). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_invoice (invoices) and approve/decline (actions) by focusing on read-only retrieval of estimates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage ('Read an estimate a contractor sent you') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like approve_estimate or decline_estimate, nor state when not to use it. The parameter guidance about omitting link when exactly one is configured is present, but tool-level usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools