Create an audience or saved segment. Only allowlisted filter fields are accepted — a saved segment cannot be turned into an arbitrary query over the CRM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | static or saved_segment | |
| name | Yes | Audience name | |
| filter | No | The saved filter, for `saved_segment`. Allowlisted fields only. | |
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / filter / descriptionAdded value: +"The saved filter, for `saved_segment`. Allowlisted fields only."Input schema / properties / kind / enumAdded value: +[
+ "static",
+ "saved_segment"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly signals a create/write operation and the important limitation about allowlisted filter fields, but it does not mention permissions, failure behavior for invalid filters, duplicate names, or what the created resource returns.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the single most important constraint. Every word earns its place.
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 create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the filter structure, allowed field list, and response shape undefined. It is minimally sufficient because the schema covers required/optional parameters, but an agent still lacks concrete guidance for building a valid filter object.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the filter constraint already present in the schema ('Allowlisted fields only') and adds the 'arbitrary query over the CRM' framing, but it does not meaningfully enhance the parameter docs.
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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Create an audience or saved segment.' It identifies the two supported kinds (static, saved_segment) and is clearly distinct from sibling update/delete/get tools, which address different operations on the same resource.
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 does not name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over audience_update or audiences, but it does give an operative constraint: only allowlisted filter fields are accepted, so a saved segment cannot be an arbitrary CRM query. That is useful context for deciding whether this tool fits, but not explicit selection guidance.
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.