FavCRM

This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin

create_service_schedule

Create a bookable schedule window for a service, including recurring weekly/daily availability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Start date or one-off date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`notes`	No	Free-form notes
`endTime`	Yes	HH:MM (24h)
`staffId`	No	Optional companyMembers.id to bind this schedule to staff
`byWeekday`	No	Weekdays for weekly recurrence: 0=Mon, 1=Tue, ... 6=Sun
`serviceId`	Yes	Service ID
`startTime`	Yes	HH:MM (24h)
`recurrence`	No	Default none
`resourceId`	No	Optional resource ID to bind this schedule to a room/resource
`maxCapacity`	No	Max bookings per generated slot
`recurrenceEndDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`recurrenceInterval`	No	Default 1

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
`summary`	Yes	One-line human-readable summary of the action
`renderType`	Yes	UI rendering hint for the result

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Create' is consistent. However, it does not add behavioral context like permissions needed or side effects beyond what the schema provides.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence (12 words) that is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 12 parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It could mention the required parameters (serviceId, date, startTime, endTime) for completeness, but the schema covers them.

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%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond summarizing that recurrence is supported. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool creates a bookable schedule window for a service with recurrence options, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_service_schedules or update_service_schedule.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_staff_availability or set_resource_availability, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All FavCRM tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions that minimize ambiguity. Even related tools like create_post vs create_post_type are well-separated by their targets.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_account, list_services, update_post), with no mixing of naming conventions. The pattern is predictable throughout the set.

Tool Count1/5

190 tools is excessively large for any server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 tool range. The sheer volume overwhelms agents and suggests poor scoping, even for a comprehensive CRM platform.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers CRUD operations across many domains (CRM, bookings, marketing, CMS, etc.), but notable gaps exist (e.g., no delete_account, delete_contact, update_booking). These are minor given the vast surface.

Resources

Need Help?