Relinta

Create a reusable custom lead column

createLeadCustomField

Destructive

Create a reusable custom lead column

Creates a workspace text field. Supply an optional stable bare key for integrations; otherwise Relinta generates one from the name. Retries with the same case-insensitive name and matching key return the existing field. A conflicting name/key returns 409. At most 50 definitions per workspace. This does not populate any lead or start outreach.

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": "createLeadCustomField"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the 409 on name/key conflict, the 50-definition per-workspace cap, and the fact that a retry with matching case-insensitive name and key returns the existing field rather than erroring. That retry clause sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but it is conditional on both name and key matching, so it is a nuance rather than a contradiction. Permissions or auth requirements are still unstated.

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 action, then quota, conflict, and non-effect facts in a tight sequence where each sentence adds new information. The opening line duplicates the tool title verbatim, which is the one piece of waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description covers the operational facts an agent needs: key behavior, dedupe/conflict outcome, and the per-workspace limit. Only authorization prerequisites and whether the created field is immediately usable elsewhere are left implicit.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the important part: the key is optional, must be a stable bare key for integrations, and is otherwise generated from the name, which is meaning the schema's pattern and immutability note do not convey. The name field's semantics (case-insensitive identity for dedupe) are only implied via the retry sentence, and length bounds are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Creates a workspace text field' — and the lead-column framing makes the domain clear. It is distinguishable from createCompanyCustomField and listLeadCustomFields by resource noun, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 concrete conditional guidance: supply a bare key when integrations need a stable identifier, otherwise the system derives one from the name. It also sets a boundary on what the tool is for by stating it 'does not populate any lead or start outreach,' which steers agents away from expecting data changes. No explicit sibling alternatives are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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?