Conecto

Change a Salesforce record

salesforce_update

Change fields of a record. On accounts with an owner it waits for the owner's approval by default, showing each field's value now and after. $0.001. Costs $0.001 per call; nothing if it fails.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "object": "<object>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "salesforce_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The record's id.
`fields`	Yes	Field API names and values, like {"StageName": "Closed Won", "Amount": 18400}.
`object`	Yes	The object's API name, like Account, Contact, Opportunity or Case.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses a real behavioral trait: mutations on records with an owner go through an owner-approval step by default and show before/after values. It also states the cost ($0.001 per call, free on failure). It leaves out whether the call blocks on approval, what is returned when a request is pending, and which fields are non-editable.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action, then the approval behavior, then cost. The pricing sentence is redundant — "$0.001." followed by "Costs $0.001 per call" repeats itself — which is the main waste in an otherwise tight three-sentence paragraph.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a non-idempotent, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the approval wrinkle and cost but omits return shape (pending vs applied), what happens when approval is denied, and whether the call is synchronous. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for a write operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema documents id, object, and a fields example with constraints, so the description is not required to carry parameter detail. The description adds no information beyond the schema (the 'each field's value now and after' refers to behavior, not parameter meaning), so baseline 3 is right.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Change fields of a record" gives a specific verb (change) and resource (fields of a Salesforce record), which is clear. It does not distinguish this from salesforce_create or hubspot_update, and the fact that it operates on an arbitrary Salesforce object (account, contact, opportunity, case) is only discoverable from the schema, not the description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when this applies (existing records, fields on them) and notes a default approval behavior on owned accounts, which is useful context. However, it names no alternatives (salesforce_create, salesforce_get) and gives no conditions for choosing this tool over them or guidance on the non-default approval path.

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

All Conecto tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?