Skip to main content
Glama

FlowCastle

by ai.flowcastle

create_contact

Create a contact manually — for imports or externally-sourced audiences; contacts who message a bot are created automatically. Requires the manage_broadcasts permission. platformId must be unique within the bot (duplicate fails with 409); botId may be omitted only when the application has exactly one bot. The variables map takes variable NAMES (or full folder paths when a name is ambiguous) — not ids — and unknown names fail with 422. NOT idempotent: retrying a success creates nothing new only because the duplicate platformId is rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdNoBot the contact belongs to. Optional only when the application has exactly one bot; otherwise the call fails listing the candidate bots.
emailNoEmail address.
phoneNoPhone number.
statusNoInitial subscription status. Defaults to "subscribed".
lastNameNoLast name.
usernameNoPlatform username, without @.
firstNameNoFirst name.
variablesNoContact variable values to set, as { "variableName": "value" }. Keys are variable NAMES or full folder paths (not ids); an unknown or ambiguous name fails the whole call before the contact is created.
platformIdYesRequired. Platform-side user id (e.g. the Telegram user id). Must be unique within the bot.
applicationIdNoApplication (workspace) id. Optional: an application-scoped key (app_...) defaults to its own application, but a personal key (usr_...) has no default and omitting it fails with MCP_APPLICATION_REQUIRED. Call list_applications to get the id.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds critical behavior: failure on duplicate platformId (409), the botId omission rule, the variables map using names not ids (422 on unknown names), and a nuanced idempotency statement ('NOT idempotent: retrying a success creates nothing new only because the duplicate platformId is rejected'). This goes far beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences cover purpose, use cases, permission, constraints, error behavior, and idempotency. Each sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition. The front-loaded purpose sentence immediately orients the agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 10 parameters, a nested variables object, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description covers permission, failure modes, parameter constraints, and idempotency nuances. It does not describe the return value or pagination, but for a create operation this is less critical and may be supplemented by schema. The description is appropriately complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema for several parameters: platformId must be unique (and duplicate fails), botId may be omitted only with a single-bot app, variables keys are names/paths not ids and fail with 422, and applicationId can fail with MCP_APPLICATION_REQUIRED. This is substantial added value for the most error-prone parameters.

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: 'Create a contact manually — for imports or externally-sourced audiences'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the automatic contact creation triggered when a bot receives a message, and the sibling list (e.g., update_contact, get_contact) makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('for imports or externally-sourced audiences') and when not ('contacts who message a bot are created automatically'). It also mentions a required permission (manage_broadcasts) and key constraints (platformId uniqueness). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for updating existing contacts, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All FlowCastle toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each get_/list_ tool targets a distinct resource and the descriptions carefully separate similar pairs like get_application_context vs get_workspace_summary and get_broadcast_details vs get_broadcast_analytics. The main ambiguity is apply_actions vs validate_actions, since one runs the other's validation, but the descriptions make that relationship explicit.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently follow verb_object snake_case and use familiar verbs like create, get, list, and update. Minor deviations such as read_messages instead of list_messages, apply_actions/validate_actions with plural nouns, and run_flow_autotest are still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the 25-tool threshold and makes the surface feel heavy, even though the domain is broad. Many of the read-only getters are individually useful but could be consolidated, such as merging module catalog/details or workspace/application context.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: application lifecycle, flow editing through apply_actions, deployment, contacts, broadcasts, modules, and message/event reads. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated delete for contacts, applications, or broadcasts, and no rollback for deployments, but agents can work around or avoid these.

Resources