get_estimatesRetrieve client estimates and quotes filtered by status, contact, or limit to review sent, accepted, or declined documents.
Get estimates/quotes sent to clients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 50) | |
| status | No | Filter: draft, sent, accepted, declined, all | |
| contact_id | No | Filter by client contact ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a scoping detail ('sent to clients') but does not explain behaviors like pagination, default limits, or the inclusion of draft estimates. This is acceptable given the strong annotations, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond them.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently states the verb, resource, and scope qualifier, earning its place despite the slight ambiguity in 'sent to clients'.
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 read-only tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits what the returned estimates look like and does not reconcile 'sent to clients' with the draft/all status values, but the annotations and schema carry most of the load.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, status, contact_id), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('estimates/quotes'), which distinguishes it from create_estimate and other non-estimate tools. However, the phrase 'sent to clients' is slightly ambiguous because the status filter includes 'draft' and 'all', so the exact scope is not fully pinned down.
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 about when to choose get_estimates over alternatives like create_estimate, get_invoices, or other list/get tools. The description implies a read operation but provides no exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.