agentstorefront-mcp

request_quote

Request a quote to estimate monthly cost and throughput for a service based on expected calls per month.

Instructions

Request a quote for using a service at a specific call volume. Returns expected monthly cost, throughput, and subscription URL.

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": {
      "service_id": "<service_id>",
      "expected_calls_per_month": "<expected_calls_per_month>"
    },
    "name": "request_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Optional contact email for follow-up.
`service_id`	Yes
`expected_calls_per_month`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions return values (cost, throughput, subscription URL) but fails to disclose whether the action is read-only or has side effects (e.g., creating a quote record), authentication needs, or error handling.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or wasted space.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important details such as parameter formats, validation, side effects, and what happens on failure. It is not complete enough for an agent to use confidently.

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 33% (only email has a description). The description adds context for expected_calls_per_month by mentioning 'specific call volume', but it does not clarify service_id (likely a service identifier) or email's role beyond 'optional contact'. It provides some added value but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('request a quote') and resource ('for using a service at a specific call volume'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_service, list_services, search_services) which focus on retrieving service information rather than generating quotes.

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 the tool is for obtaining cost estimates based on call volume, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server