This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin
List responses for a survey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max responses (default 50) | |
| surveyId | Yes | Survey ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention pagination, sorting, the effect of the limit parameter, or any other runtime behavior. With annotations present, the bar is lowered, but the description still fails to provide useful behavioral details.
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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the essential action. It contains no wasted words. However, it could marginally expand to clarify the scope (e.g., 'for a specific survey') without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context for a tool with many siblings. It does not clarify that this tool returns response data as opposed to survey metadata or stats. The minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient information to decide when to call this tool among the many list_* and get_* tools.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as no value is added beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('responses for a survey'). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like 'get_survey' or 'get_survey_stats'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that to retrieve survey metadata one should use 'get_survey', or that to get aggregated stats to use 'get_survey_stats'. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.