create_personAdd a CRM contact; checks duplicates first. ($0.10; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tier | No | ||
| No | |||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| aliases | No | ||
| request_id | No | Client idempotency key (retries return original result). | |
| relationship | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | Alias for request_id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person | No | CRM person record. | |
| created | No | ||
| message | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idempotency_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias for request_id.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Client idempotency key (retries return original result).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, it discloses a duplicate check, a $0.10 cost, and an API key requirement. It does not specify the outcome when a duplicate is found (error vs no-op), but still adds material behavioral context not present in annotations or schema.
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?
One efficient sentence with essential business constraints appended parenthetically. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause adds value.
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?
Output schema covers return values and annotations cover basic mutability, so the description need not explain those. However, it omits what happens on duplicate detection and does not clarify parameter semantics (especially tier/relationship), leaving moderate gaps for an agent to hit errors on alternative paths.
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 only 22% (just request_id/idempotency_key), and the description lists no parameter details. An agent must infer the meaning of tier, relationship, and aliases from names alone, which is risky for a 9-parameter creation tool.
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?
States a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'CRM contact', and adds unique behavioral cue 'checks duplicates first'. This clearly distinguishes it from update_person, merge_people, and read-only lookup siblings.
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 clearly frames the tool as the way to create a new CRM contact, and the duplicate-check note implies it is the entry point before considering update or merge operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for creation.
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.