Skip to main content
Glama

SUNAGO Matrix

by com.sunago-matrix

Add a note, optionally tagging colleagues

notes_create

Add a note to a lead, deal, contact or task. Tag colleagues by passing their employees.id in mention_employee_ids (look them up with hr_get_employees) - the tool appends the @Name markup the Matrix UI renders, records the mention, and sends each of them a notification that lands in their bell. You can also write the markup inline yourself and it will be picked up. Tagging yourself never sends a notification. Requires edit rights on the owning feature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
entity_idYes
entity_typeYesWhich kind of record the note hangs off.
mention_employee_idsNoemployees.id of colleagues to tag. Max 20.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description adds crucial side-effect detail: generated @[Name](id) markup, recorded mentions, bell notifications, no notification for self-tags, and acceptance of inline markup. It also discloses permission requirements.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds relevant operational detail. It is longer than minimal, but the mention/notification behavior justifies the extra length.

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?

For a create operation with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral requirements: target entity, mention mechanics, notifications, and permissions. It does not state what the tool returns, which is the main gap.

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?

The schema describes entity_type and mention_employee_ids, and the description enriches mention_employee_ids with lookup guidance and notification behavior. It leaves entity_id somewhat implicit, but 'to a lead, deal, contact or task' plus the required entity_type makes the intended value inferable.

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 opens with 'Add a note to a lead, deal, contact or task', naming a specific action and resource. The title and sibling set (notes_delete/notes_update) make the create-specific scope unmistakable.

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 clearly states when the mention parameter is appropriate and points to hr_get_employees for ID lookup, and notes the edit-rights prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like notes_update or crm_create_followup, but the create semantics are clear.

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

All SUNAGO Matrix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.

Naming Consistency4/5

The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.

Tool Count1/5

With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.

Resources