Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Clipwright

Clipwright

by seocombat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Quote a workflow run

quote_workflow_plan
Read-only

Quote an approved workflow plan read-only without spending credits, previewing native price and warnings before a paid launch; the expiring quote ID binds the exact revision and input.

Instructions

Quote the approved current plan without spending credits. Free and read-only. Show the native price and every warning before requesting a paid launch. The returned quote_id expires and binds the exact revision and semantic input. Its launch is the ready run_workflow_plan body, with a fresh idempotency_key.

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": {
      "plan_id": "<plan_id>"
    },
    "name": "quote_workflow_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.39.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Addedv0.29.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantive behavior: no credit spend, the quote_id is time-limited, it pins an exact revision and semantic input, and the quote payload doubles as the launch body for run_workflow_plan with a fresh idempotency_key. These are non-obvious operational facts an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the free/read-only fact that matters most, and nothing is redundant. The final sentence about the launch body and idempotency_key is compressed to the point of being slightly hard to parse on first read.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (native price, warnings, an expiring quote_id) and how that output is consumed downstream. For a one-parameter, non-destructive tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 0% for the single plan_id parameter, so the description must carry the load. "The approved current plan" does add meaning by implying the plan must already be approved, but it never explains the wfp_ identifier format or what happens when the plan is not yet approved.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Quote the approved current plan") and immediately scopes it against the costly alternative by stating it spends no credits. An agent can distinguish this from run_workflow_plan, get_workflow_plan, and approve_workflow_plan from the text alone.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context — quote first, then request a paid launch — and names run_workflow_plan as the follow-up path, so the sequencing is unambiguous. It does not explicitly exclude other siblings such as quote_revision or quote_candidate, leaving that routing to inference.

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