FavCRM

This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin

create_template

Create and submit a WhatsApp message template to Meta for approval. Text templates only (header text, body with {{1}} variables, footer) — add buttons in the app. The template is NOT usable until Meta approves it (check with list_templates). Submitting consumes the store’s Meta template allowance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Friendly template name (a Meta-safe id is derived from it).
`footer`	No	Optional small footer text.
`message`	Yes	Body text. Use {{1}}, {{2}} for personalised values.
`category`	Yes	UTILITY = transactional (order/shipping), MARKETING = promos, AUTHENTICATION = codes.
`language`	No	Language code, default en_US.
`headerText`	No	Optional short bold header above the body.
`variableSamples`	No	Example values per variable number, e.g. {"1":"Sara"} — Meta reviews with these.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: submission to Meta, approval requirement, allowance consumption, and scope (text only, buttons added elsewhere). Annotations are neutral (not read-only, not destructive), and description complements them without contradiction.

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 concise: two sentences covering main action and key constraints, plus a final sentence on allowance. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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 creation tool with 7 params and an output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: creation, submission, approval wait, allowance impact, and scope limitations. It is self-contained and provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., name derivation, variable formatting, category enum meanings). The description adds overarching context (text-only, app for buttons) but no per-parameter enhancements beyond what schema provides. 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 action: 'Create and submit a WhatsApp message template to Meta for approval.' It specifies verb (create/submit), resource (WhatsApp template), and scope (text templates only, with header, body, footer). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_templates and other create_* tools.

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?

The description explains when to use (to create and submit a template) and provides context: template is not usable until Meta approves, and consuming allowance. It mentions checking with list_templates for approval status. Though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context is clear and helpful.

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?