Create a single-step rule: when [if ] then . conditions=[{field,op,value}] (ANDed), actions=[{type,...}]. Example: trigger_event='deal.stage_changed', conditions=[{field:'stage',op:'eq',value:'won'}], actions=[{type:'create_activity',body:'Deal won!'}]. See relm_automations_capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| actions | Yes | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| conditions | No | ||
| trigger_event | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the rule is single-step, conditions are ANDed, and gives a structural example. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or execution behavior, though annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is valuable but slightly lengthy; however, it earns its place by clarifying the data structures.
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 tool with non-trivial structure and no schema descriptions or output schema, the description provides a structural template, an example, and a cross-reference to capabilities. It lacks details on name/enabled and return behavior, but the essentials are covered.
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?
The description significantly enriches the bare schema by explaining trigger_event, conditions, and actions with a concrete example. It covers the main complex parameters, though name and enabled are not explicitly described, they are self-evident.
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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a single-step rule' and elaborates the structure (when/if/then). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like relm_get_automation and relm_manage_automation.
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 provides context for creating an automation rule and references relm_automations_capabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The example implies usage, but no explicit exclusions are given.
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-action pair (e.g., create_automation, create_pipeline, create_template), and potential overlaps like batch vs create or log_activity vs create are clearly differentiated in descriptions. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All 41 tools follow the relm_<verb>_<noun> pattern in snake_case, with conventional verbs like create, get, list, delete, manage, and restore. Minor plural/singular differences (list_automations vs get_automation) follow standard resource-naming practices and do not break consistency.
At 41 tools, the set is far beyond the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate. While the CRM domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., generic get/list by resource type) without losing clarity.
The tool set covers the full record lifecycle (CRUD, restore, batch, search) plus schema management, pipelines, stages, automations, sequences, templates, webhooks, channels, and usage. However, automations, sequences, and templates lack update operations—requiring delete-and-recreate workarounds—which is a minor but notable gap.
