Creates a pipeline in the tenant CRM. Required: name. Needs crm:write on the organization. Returns the created resource with its absolute url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | name | |
| stages | No | Stage names to create with the pipeline, in order. | |
| organization_id | Yes | organization_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / stages / descriptionAdded value: +"Stage names to create with the pipeline, in order."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the permission requirement (crm:write) and the return value (created resource with absolute URL), which are useful. However, it does not mention side effects beyond creation, potential failure modes, or any constraints on stages. This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Creates a pipeline'), then packs required fields, permission, and return value with zero waste. It is efficient and well-structured.
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 simple create operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, a required field, permission, and return type. However, it omits that organization_id is also required and does not describe the optional stages parameter. These gaps are partially filled by the schema but could be clearer in text.
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 adds that 'name' is required, but it does not mention 'organization_id' as required (though the schema does). It also does not explain the 'stages' parameter beyond what the schema provides. The description adds minimal value over the schema.
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: 'Creates a pipeline in the tenant CRM.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like list, get, update, and delete. It also mentions required field and permission, further clarifying the action.
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 implies usage (when you need to create a pipeline) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The mention of the required crm:write permission is a form of guidance, but there is no explicit routing away from other pipeline tools.
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.