Return the live schema: every object, its fields (built-in + custom), and all enum groups with their current values (contact types, activity types, etc). ALWAYS call this before guessing a type, stage, or field - it is the source of truth for what exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by explaining the tool returns live data and serves as the source of truth. It clarifies the scope (built-in + custom fields, enum groups) beyond the structured annotations, without contradicting them.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Return the live schema'), then a concise imperative for usage. No wasted words; every phrase adds value, including the specifics of built-in/custom fields and enum groups.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation, the description is fully complete. It explains what the schema contains, when to call it, and its authoritative nature, leaving no gaps for an agent to misuse it.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter detail. The baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of parameters.
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 'Return the live schema' with specific details on content (objects, fields, enum groups). It uniquely identifies this as the schema-defining tool, distinct from all sibling tools. The imperative 'ALWAYS call this before guessing' reinforces its purpose without ambiguity.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS call this before guessing a type, stage, or field.' It establishes the tool as the source of truth, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, though no sibling provides similar schema introspection.
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.
