CRM Connector

Propose: Add a note

propose_add_note

AI Agents (inside one system): Use when the person asks for this in a system whose AI agent may change records: A note on a record's timeline in the person's system. Give one item per record, at most 25. Nothing is written yet: the answer shows, per record, what it holds now and would hold after, plus a proposal id. Show it to the person, say so first when something would be sent to the people in their system, ask whether to go ahead, and only then call apply_proposal; when needsApproval is true, share the approve link instead. Not for reading (use search_records or get_record).

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": {
      "system": "<system>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "propose_add_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	One object per record, at most 25.
`system`	Yes	Which AI agent: the system's id from get_ai_agent_options, or the name of the system or its connection. Ask the person which AI agent they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notice`	No
`changes`	Yes
`systemId`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`expiresAt`	Yes
`approveUrl`	Yes
`proposalId`	Yes
`systemName`	Yes
`needsApproval`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / type / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "contact",
-  "opportunity",
-  "invoice",
-  "estimate",
-  "job",
-  "appointment"
-]New value: +[
+  "contact",
+  "opportunity",
+  "invoice",
+  "estimate",
+  "job",
+  "appointment",
+  "ticket"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / system / description

Previous value: -"Which AI agent: the system's id from get_ai_agents_info, or the name of the system or its connection. Ask the person which AI agent they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself."New value: +"Which AI agent: the system's id from get_ai_agent_options, or the name of the system or its connection. Ask the person which AI agent they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself."

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds that nothing is written yet, that the response contains per-record before/after state plus a proposal id, and that some changes notify people in the system. However, it never reconciles its non-idempotent, non-destructive write profile with the 'nothing is written yet' framing, and its primary content is procedural rather than behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The content is dense but useful; the problem is delivery. It opens with a meta-preamble ('AI Agents (inside one system)') and uses a dangling colon construction ('Use when the person asks for this ... : A note on a record's timeline') that makes the core action harder to parse than a plain first sentence would. The procedural instructions and the read exclusion are buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter proposal tool with an output schema, full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the full two-step workflow (propose, then apply_proposal), the approval branch, the batch cap, and the read-tool alternative. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: system, items, type, id, text, at and user are all documented in the schema, including the enum of record types and the guidance to ask which AI agent is meant. The description only restates the batch limit ('one item per record, at most 25'), adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: drafting a note onto a record's timeline in the person's system, and clarifies it is a proposal rather than a write. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling propose_update_note, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the situation (a system whose AI agent may change records, when the person asks for it), the follow-up (show the person, ask, then call apply_proposal), the needsApproval branch (share the approve link instead), and the exclusion with alternatives for reads (search_records or get_record). Little is left to inference.

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

All CRM Connector 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?