create_estimateCreate a client estimate by supplying contact ID, date, line items, and optional notes or expiry.
Create a new estimate/quote for a client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Line items: [{description, quantity, unit_price, vat_rate?}] | |
| notes | No | Notes to client | |
| contact_id | Yes | Client contact ID | |
| valid_until | No | Expiry date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| estimate_date | Yes | Estimate date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, so they only signal that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive-but-declared. The description adds only the trivial fact that it creates a new record; it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the estimate is sent to the client, assigned a status, or becomes immediately visible), auth requirements, or post-creation behavior. With weak annotations, the description carries a burden it does not meet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; 'new' reinforces the non-idempotent nature and 'for a client' clarifies the contact relationship.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an estimate ID or generated document), nor the estimate lifecycle (draft vs. sent, whether it requires further approval). The schema covers inputs well, but the missing return-value and workflow context leaves an agent guessing about correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented with names and formats such as 'Expiry date (YYYY-MM-DD)' and the items array structure. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('create') with a clear resource ('estimate/quote') and recipient ('for a client'). It distinguishes cleanly from sibling create tools like create_opportunity, create_contact, create_bill, and create_task, since the resource noun is unique and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer create_estimate over create_opportunity or create_transaction, or how it relates to the read-side get_estimates. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.