CRM Connector

Propose: Change email consent

propose_change_consent

AI Agents (inside one system): Use when the person asks for this in a system whose AI agent may change records: A contact subscribed to or unsubscribed from the email the person's system sends. Only the person can approve it. 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_change_consent"
  }
}

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 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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say the call is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world; the description adds what those hints cannot: nothing is written yet, the response holds before/after values per record plus a proposal id, and a needsApproval branch requires an approve link instead of apply_proposal. It also warns that something may be sent to the people in the person's system, which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs disclosed.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but nearly every clause carries actionable content: trigger, approval rule, batch limit, preview shape, next step, and exclusion. The weakness is ordering and syntax – the 'what it does' is buried mid-sentence after a long conditional clause, making it harder to scan than a front-loaded verb statement.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still tells the agent the shape of the answer (current vs. proposed values, proposal id) and the exact next step, including the needsApproval branch. Combined with the explicit read-tool exclusions and the per-record batching rule, nothing material for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%: both system and items, including the nested id/type/subscribed/reason fields and the 25-item cap, are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Give one item per record, at most 25' essentially restates maxItems, and it adds no new semantics for the subscribed flag or the system identifier beyond what the schema says.

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?

The description identifies the resource and effect: proposing a change so a contact is subscribed to or unsubscribed from the email the person's system sends, one item per record. It explicitly separates itself from apply_proposal (the commit step) and from read tools (search_records, get_record). The actual verb is delivered in a roundabout, colon-chained way rather than stated up front, so the core action must be assembled from fragments.

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?

It names the triggering condition (the person asks for this in a system whose AI agent may change records), the restriction (only the person can approve it), the follow-through (show the preview, ask, then call apply_proposal; share the approve link when needsApproval is true), and the exclusion (not for reading – use search_records or get_record). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, along with the sibling that handles the alternative case.

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?