Skip to main content
Glama

add_client

Add a client. Adding one can open their engagement if the firm has a live service; nothing is sent to them without the owner's OK.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "add_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe client's name (a person or a company).
emailNoTheir email address, optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a valuable side effect (an engagement can be opened if the firm has a live service) and a safety guarantee (nothing is sent without the owner's OK), but omits whether permissions are required, what happens on duplicate names, and what the call returns — with no output schema, the return value is undocumented anywhere.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation stated first and the consequential side effect second; nothing is padding. The consent clause ('without the owner's OK') is slightly vague about who the owner is, but it earns its place as a safety signal.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important risk (side effects and consent) but leaves the agent guessing about the returned client identifier and duplicate/validation behavior. Adequate, not complete.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already states about name and email.

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 definition opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Add a client', so the operation is unambiguous at a glance. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_client and list_clients by the verb alone, though it never names them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns this is the tool for registering a new client, and that a live firm service may open an engagement as a consequence. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of how this differs from list_clients/get_client, and no duplicate-handling guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources