complete_sales_taskMark one of the caller's sales tasks/activities done (or reopen it with done=false). Stamps or clears the completion time; activity_id is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| done | No | Default true (complete). Pass false to reopen. | |
| activity_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that marking a task done stamps the completion time, and reopening clears it. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent). It does not specify authorization scope (e.g., only the caller's tasks) or potential side effects, but it is sufficient for a simple mutation.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word provides value. It is efficient and avoids redundancy with the schema.
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 tool with two parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers the essential behavior and parameter usage. It does not explain the output format, but that is handled by the output schema. Minor gap: it does not state that the tool only works on the caller's tasks, but this is implicit in 'caller's sales tasks.'
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 50% (only 'done' has a description in the schema). The tool description reiterates that activity_id is required and done defaults true, but adds no new parameter-level detail. The description does clarify the boolean usage, but does not fully compensate for the undocumented activity_id parameter.
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 clearly states the tool's action (marking a sales task done or reopening it) and the specific resource (caller's sales tasks/activities). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools which handle creation, updates, or other specific operations.
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 when to use: to complete or reopen a specific sales task. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, such as logging a deal activity or updating outreach lead status. The purpose is self-evident, so no major gap.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clearly separate overlapping domains (e.g., consulting vs. marketing vs. outreach). Even within the same domain, tools like 'create_consulting_deliverable' and 'create_consulting_document_revision' are unambiguous due to their specific nouns.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., 'create_invoice', 'get_deal', 'list_agents'). The few exceptions like 'locus_determine_from_scores' still adhere to the verb_noun structure and do not break the pattern.
With 124 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for typical MCP use. The tool count far exceeds the '50+ extreme mismatch' threshold, making it nearly impossible for an agent to efficiently navigate or select the right tool without extensive context. Even a large platform should consolidate or expose fewer tools.
The tool surface covers CRUD and lifecycle operations across at least 10 domains (sales, consulting, marketing, outreach, accounting, workflows, ticketing, API keys, feedback, platform metrics). Each domain appears to have no obvious gaps—e.g., invoicing includes create, update, send, mark paid, void; ticketing includes create, update, archive, dependencies, batch, scenarios, validation.