OrgLines

Add lead note

add_lead_note

Log a note against a CRM lead in one step — the fast path to record a call/message on a contact. Creates a personal note, links it to the lead (so it appears on the lead's timeline) and stamps the lead history — all atomically. Pass 'lead_id' and 'content'. Only a lead in the caller's workspace is reachable. Provide at least one of: content | text. CONFIRMATION: this tool is PROPOSED, never performed directly. You get status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and a plan_token, and the write happens only after confirm_action.

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": {
      "lead_id": "<lead_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_lead_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`content`	No
`lead_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only and non-destructive; the description goes far beyond them by disclosing atomicity of the note/link/history writes and, critically, the two-step confirmation protocol (status='confirmation_required', action_id, plan_token, confirm_action). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and outcome, then parameters, then a clearly labeled CONFIRMATION block — good structure for scanning. The one wasted element is the conflicting instruction about content versus text, which adds confusion rather than information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers the essentials for a mutation tool with no output schema: what gets written, scope restriction, and the confirmation gate. The remaining gap is the unresolved content/text semantics, which matters because both are accepted with the same minLength constraint.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partly does — lead_id scoping is explained via the workspace constraint and content/text are identified as the payload inputs. However it first says "Pass 'lead_id' and 'content'" and then "Provide at least one of: content | text," leaving the required/optional status and the content-vs-text distinction ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Log a note against a CRM lead") plus the side effects it produces (personal note created, linked to lead timeline, lead history stamped, atomically). This distinguishes it from generic note tools like create_note and mail_add_note by scoping to CRM leads.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear use case ("the fast path to record a call/message on a contact") and a scope constraint (only leads in the caller's workspace are reachable). It does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives such as mail_add_note or create_note, so routing guidance is implied rather than exhaustive.

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

All OrgLines 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?