CRM Connector

Propose: Change a note

propose_update_note

AI Agents (inside one system): Use when the person asks for this in a system whose AI agent may change records: The text of a note that already exists, by the id list_related_records gives 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_update_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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive), the description discloses the dry-run semantics ("Nothing is written yet"), the exact shape of the preview (current vs. proposed value per record plus a proposal id), a real-world side effect (something would be sent to people in the system), and the needsApproval branch. That is substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but nearly every clause earns its place — the confirmation loop and the needsApproval branch materially change behavior. Minor deduction for the tangled opening sentence, where a colon splices a scope qualifier onto a noun phrase ("...may change records: The text of a note...") and delays the core action.

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 and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything that is not already structured: confirmation workflow, approval path, batching limit, and the read-vs-write boundary. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, so both the system parameter and the nested item fields (type, id, note_id, text) are already documented in structured data. The description restates the batch size limit and the note_id provenance rather than adding new constraints or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Change a note" / "The text of a note that already exists") and pins the identifier source to a named sibling (list_related_records). An agent can distinguish this from read tools and from sibling propose_* mutation tools without opening a schema.

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 states the trigger ("when the person asks for this in a system whose AI agent may change records"), names an explicit exclusion with alternatives ("Not for reading (use search_records or get_record)"), and specifies the downstream sequence — confirm with the person, then call apply_proposal, or share the approve link when needsApproval is true. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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?