Relinta

Create a custom company column

createCompanyCustomField

Destructive

Create a custom company column

Creates a workspace text column. Optional bare key is immutable. Otherwise a key is generated from name. Same case-insensitive name and matching key is idempotent; name/key conflicts return 409. Up to 50 company fields per workspace. Does not change any company or LinkedIn profile. Requires outreach:write scope.

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "createCompanyCustomField"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`headers`	Yes
`httpStatus`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the quota ceiling, key immutability, generated-key fallback, 409 conflict conditions, the required outreach:write scope, and a negative side-effect clause ('Does not change any company or LinkedIn profile'). The one soft tension is that the description claims idempotency for same name/key while idempotentHint is false; the description's own 409-on-mismatch rule explains the annotation, so this reads as nuance rather than contradiction.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then key rules, then idempotency/conflict, then quota, side effects, and scope. The only waste is the repeated title line, which restates nothing new.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema, annotations, and nested input, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly and predict failures — auth scope, quota, conflict codes, key immutability, and no side effects on company/LinkedIn data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the body is a nested object, so the description must carry the semantics. It does explain the pivotal `key` behavior (optional, immutable once set, otherwise derived from `name`), though length/pattern constraints on `name` and the role of the outer `body` wrapper are left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a custom company column'), then narrows the artifact to 'a workspace text column', which separates it from createLeadCustomField (lead scope) and listCompanyCustomFields (read path) without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

It gives concrete operating context: up to 50 company fields per workspace, immutable explicitly supplied key, key auto-generated from name otherwise, and idempotent behavior on matching name/key versus a 409 on conflict. It never names an alternative tool for inspecting existing fields, but the quota and conflict rules implicitly tell the agent when creation will fail.

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

All Relinta 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?