Convert a prospect to an active client: creates the client's household and its primary entity, as the web's Convert does. entity_type: PERSON, COMPANY, TRUST, FOUNDATION (defaults from the client type). household_name defaults to the client's name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| firm_id | No | ||
| client_id | Yes | ||
| entity_type | No | ||
| household_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the side effects (household and primary entity creation), but omits whether the operation is irreversible, what permissions are needed, and what the 'confirm' flag does — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.
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 effect is front-loaded in the first clause and the parameter notes follow in a compact, readable block. The phrase 'as the web's Convert does' adds little for an API agent but is a minor cost.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the creation effects are covered. However, for an annotation-free mutation tool, the missing guidance on confirm, permissions, and reversibility leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: it explains entity_type (enumerated values plus defaulting from client type) and household_name (defaults to client name). The client_id, firm_id, and confirm parameters remain undocumented anywhere.
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 specific verb and resource ('Convert a prospect to an active client') and clarifies the concrete effect: it creates the client's household and its primary entity. It reads unambiguously as a lifecycle-conversion operation, distinct from creation-oriented siblings like create_eam_client or create_client_goal.
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?
Usage is only implied by the word 'Convert'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer that this is the conversion step for an existing prospect, but nothing routes it explicitly against siblings or states prerequisites.
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.