Taseli

CRM connection and lead loop

crm_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read only. Whether the business's CRM (HubSpot, Pipedrive or monday.com) is connected to Taseli, when it was last pulled, how many deals the last pull read and how many matched an ad lead, which open CRM stages are still on 'not yet' (their deals teach the ad platforms nothing until the owner maps them in Taseli's Leads › CRM page), and what currently blocks the lead loop: the top reason good leads and closed deals do not reach Google and Meta, in plain words, per ad account, and whether the owner can fix it. Also says how many deals from the CRM reached each platform in the last 30 days. Useful for 'is my CRM connected?', 'are my deals reaching Google?', 'why does Google not know which leads closed?'. Only counts, stage names and the CRM's name are returned, never contacts. Connecting or mapping is done by the owner in Taseli, not here.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crm_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No	An ad account's name, to see its lead-loop blocker only; omit for all of them.
`language`	No	Answer language. The business's language by default.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`summary`	No	The state in plain words (English).
`leadLoop`	No
`connected`	No	At least one CRM is connected.
`topBlocker`	No
`connections`	No
`crmConnectors`	No	Whether CRM connections are switched on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so repeating 'Read only.' earns nothing. What does add value is the data exposure statement — 'Only counts, stage names and the CRM's name are returned, never contacts' — and the disclosure that mapping is an owner action performed elsewhere, which explains why blockers may persist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is dense and mostly load-bearing, but it is delivered as one enormous run-on sentence with a six-clause list embedded mid-sentence. A short lead sentence plus separated points on connection state, unmapped stages, and blockers would be far easier to parse; nothing is front-loaded beyond 'Read only.'

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-required-param status tool it covers everything an agent needs: what state is reported, the 30-day window for platform reach, per-account granularity via 'account', that output is aggregate not contact-level, and that remediation happens outside this tool. An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is correctly omitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'omit for all of them' behaviour of 'account'. The description reinforces that filtering is per ad account for the blocker output, but adds no format, default or syntax detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a concrete resource (CRM connection + lead loop status for HubSpot/Pipedrive/monday.com) and enumerates exactly what is reported: connection state, last pull, deals read/matched, unmapped stages, blockers per ad account, 30-day platform reach. No sibling tool in the list covers CRM connection state, so it is unambiguously distinguishable.

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 three example user questions that should route here ('is my CRM connected?', 'are my deals reaching Google?', 'why does Google not know which leads closed?') and states an explicit out-of-scope boundary: 'Connecting or mapping is done by the owner in Taseli, not here.' It never names a sibling as the alternative destination, which keeps it from a 5.

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

All Taseli 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?