update CRM deal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | title | |
| deal_id | Yes | deal_id | |
| currency | No | currency | |
| stage_id | No | stage id | |
| pipeline_id | No | pipeline id | |
| value_minor | No | value_minor | |
| organization_id | Yes | organization_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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. 'Update' signals mutation, but the description does not disclose permissions, partial-update semantics, side effects, or whether an existing deal must already exist.
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 very short and has no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single generic sentence is not appropriately sized for a 7-parameter mutation tool.
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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain update behavior, required identifiers, and how it differs from sibling tools. It provides none of that, leaving an agent to infer the full contract.
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 even though the tool description adds no parameter meaning. The schema's property descriptions are mostly tautological ('title: title'), and the description does not clarify that organization_id and deal_id identify the target deal.
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 clear verb ('update') and resource ('CRM deal'), so an agent can tell this is a mutation operation on deals. However, it is generic and does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like commsharbor_crm_deals_create or commsharbor_platform_crm_deals_update.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deal creation, listing, or retrieval. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided to help an agent choose correctly.
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 resource CRUD sets are distinct, but the server duplicates entire CRM activity/task tool groups under crm_* and platform_crm_* with identical descriptions, so an agent cannot tell which set to call. Additional overlap exists around identity/context (me, context, platform_context, organizations) and exports (contacts_export vs data_export_create).
Names generally follow commsharbor_<resource>_<action>, but list endpoints are split between plural nouns (audiences, webhooks) and *_list suffixes (crm_activities_list), and some tools use bare nouns or verbs (health, me, context, logout). The mixed conventions are readable but not fully predictable.
141 tools is far beyond a coherent surface for an agent to select from. Even with a broad CRM/email platform scope, the set should be consolidated, namespaced more aggressively, or split into multiple focused servers.
Coverage is broad: campaigns, templates, audiences, CRM objects, imports/exports, auth, billing, domains, webhooks, and suppressions all have lifecycle tools. Gaps like suppression deletion, webhook update, and a non-platform leads group are minor relative to the overall surface, though the duplicate platform sets muddy completeness.