crm_communication_threadThe complete message thread with one contact inside a card. key comes from a crm_communication_history row (an email address or LinkedIn chat id). Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| key | Yes | Thread key from crm_communication_history | |
| type | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only and free, which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, error behavior, or how the id/type parameters affect the result.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key source and the read-only/free note. Every sentence earns its place.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description leaves important gaps. It does not define what `id` and `type` mean, how they relate to the card, or when to prefer this tool over closely related CRM communication tools. The read-only/free note is helpful but not sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds meaningful context for `key` by explaining that it comes from a crm_communication_history row and can be an email address or LinkedIn chat id. However, `id` and `type` remain effectively unexplained, leaving two required parameters ambiguous.
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 identifies the resource and scope clearly: the complete message thread with one contact inside a card. It is distinguishable from history/card-list tools because it emphasizes a full thread for one contact, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns' and does not name sibling tools.
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 implies usage: to get a full message thread for one contact, using a key taken from a crm_communication_history row. It does not explicitly explain when to choose this over closely related siblings like crm_get_conversation or crm_communication_history, so guidance is partial.
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.
Despite consistently detailed descriptions, several tool pairs have unclear boundaries: `get_subscription_limits` and `get_agent_plan_limits` describe essentially the same agent-slot check, `crm_get_conversation` and `crm_communication_thread` both claim to return the full message thread, and `get_credit_usage_by_agent` vs `get_credit_usage_for_agent` differ only by preposition. At 149 tools, an agent will regularly misselect between these near-duplicates.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun with domain prefixes (`crm_*`, `sdr_*`) and a consistent `preview_*` family that maps cleanly to destructive/expensive actions. Deviations are minor but real: CRM deletes use the inverted `delete_crm_*` form while other CRM ops use `crm_*`, and credit-usage tools mix `by_agent`/`for_agent` prepositions.
149 tools is nearly three times the 50+ threshold the rubric treats as extreme, even though the platform genuinely spans agents, campaigns, audiences, CRM, SDR, billing, and connections. Many could be consolidated without losing capability — e.g. the 11 balance/credit-usage tools, the two LinkedIn-account listers, and the 15+ preview variants.
The surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD/lifecycle coverage for agents, campaigns, audiences, CRM leads/stages, and SDR searches, plus billing, analytics, and connection management. Destructive or costly operations all have preview/approval counterparts, so there are no dead ends. If anything the risk is over-coverage rather than gaps.