Skip to main content
Glama
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official

Get quote

get_quote
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an existing quote’s details and current status by quote ID.

Instructions

Get details about an existing quote including its current status

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": {
      "quoteId": "<quoteId>"
    },
    "name": "get_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quoteIdYesThe quote ID to look up

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that status is included in the response, which is modest extra value but says nothing about error behavior or the meaning of each status value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though ultimately quite sparse for a tool an agent may need to reason about in failure cases.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the core need is covered; there is no output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description leaves the shape of 'details' and the set of possible statuses entirely unstated, which an agent may want when interpreting the result.

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%, with quoteId documented as 'The quote ID to look up', so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing detail for quoteId beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details about an existing quote') and adds scope ('including its current status'). It is clearly distinguishable from create_quote, though it does not reference any sibling read tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'an existing quote' implies the tool is for quotes that already exist and that you need a quoteId, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if the quote is not found or in an unexpected state, and no named alternative tools.

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