get_quote_requestsGet pending quote requests for seller's products (seller tool)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Which of the calling seller's quote requests to return: pending (awaiting a reply), responded, or all. | pending |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| quotes | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / status / descriptionAdded value: +"Which of the calling seller's quote requests to return: pending (awaiting a reply), responded, or all."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "quotes": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "buyer_company": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "ISO-8601 timestamp.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "product_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "product_name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "quantity": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "target_price": {
+ "description": "Buyer target in cents.",
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "product_id",
+ "quantity",
+ "status",
+ "created_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "quotes",
+ "total",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that results are scoped to the calling seller's products and that the default view is pending requests.
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. The key scoping information ('seller's products', 'seller tool') is included without repeating the schema's parameter details.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It falls slightly short of 5 because it does not acknowledge the responded/all statuses or clarify the relationship to the closely related quote-request tools.
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 coverage is 100%: the status parameter has a clear description, enum values, and a default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Get ... quote requests') and narrows scope to the seller's own products, which separates it from request_quote and respond_to_quote. It is slightly less than 5 because it says 'pending' as if that were the entire purpose, while the schema shows status can return responded or all requests.
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?
The description gives context by marking this as a seller tool for incoming requests, so an agent can infer it is for viewing rather than creating or replying. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over respond_to_quote, request_quote, or seller_inbox_summarise, nor does it name those alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource/action pairs: search vs details, quote request vs response, bulk export vs bulk ship. The main overlaps are get_quote_requests vs seller_inbox_summarise and quick_buy vs request_quote, but their descriptions provide enough boundary to avoid serious misselection.
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun pattern with a clear bulk_ prefix for bulk operations. Minor deviations like quick_buy and seller_inbox_summarise (object before verb) slightly break the pattern, but the naming remains broadly predictable.
12 tools is well within the ideal range for a two-sided marketplace server. Each tool covers a meaningful seller or buyer workflow without feeling redundant or bloated.
Core workflows are covered: search, product details, quote negotiation, listing creation, bulk updates, bulk shipping, and export. Notable gaps include no single listing delete/update, no buyer-facing order or quote status tool, and no action to resolve reported issues surfaced by seller_inbox_summarise.