buchpilot-mcp

create_quotation

Create a new quotation with line items for a contact. Specify date, line items with name, quantity, unit price, tax rate. Optionally set title, introduction, remark, expiration date, or finalize directly.

Instructions

Erstellt ein neues Angebot mit Positionen. Creates a new quotation with line items.

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": {
      "contactId": "<contactId>",
      "date": "<date>",
      "lineItems": "<lineItems>"
    },
    "name": "create_quotation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`contactId`	Yes	Kontakt-ID
`date`	Yes	Angebotsdatum (ISO 8601)
`lineItems`	Yes	Angebotspositionen
`expirationDate`	No	Gueltig bis (ISO 8601)
`title`	No	Angebotstitel
`introduction`	No	Einleitungstext
`remark`	No	Schlusstext
`finalize`	No	Angebot direkt finalisieren
`backend`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'creates a new quotation' but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or what happens when finalize is true. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short (two sentences), but it repeats the same information in two languages unnecessarily. It is concise but not optimally structured.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, validation, or the effect of the finalize parameter, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'line items', but it does not elaborate on parameter behavior or constraints beyond the schema.

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 verb 'creates' and the resource 'quotation with line items', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_contact or create_invoice.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use create_quotation vs create_invoice). No prerequisites or context provided.

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

Deploy Server