FavCRM

This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin

report_agent_issue

Report a FavCRM platform issue when an agent finds a missing MCP path, tool failure, confusing schema, CLI/docs issue, or SDK fallback. Include logs, AI analysis, references, and clarification questions so the platform team can follow up.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`area`	Yes	Issue area
`logs`	No	Relevant error messages, command output, or stack traces
`title`	Yes	Short issue title
`severity`	Yes	Impact level
`toolCalls`	No	Relevant MCP/CLI/SDK calls, arguments, and outcomes
`aiAnalysis`	Yes	Agent analysis of likely root cause and impact
`references`	No	Source links, file paths, docs, screenshots, or IDs that support the report
`stepsTried`	Yes	Concrete steps the agent tried before reporting
`workaround`	No	Temporary workaround used, if any
`environment`	No	Runtime context such as MCP URL, CLI version, token type, client, sandbox, model, OS
`actualBehavior`	Yes	What actually happened
`expectedBehavior`	Yes	What the agent or user expected to happen
`clarificationQuestions`	No	Questions the platform team should ask the agent/user to resolve ambiguity

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds behavioral context by detailing what to include (logs, AI analysis, references, clarification questions), which helps agents understand how to use it effectively.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the tool and its trigger conditions, second lists recommended content. Front-loaded, no wasted words, and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has 13 parameters, 7 required, and an output schema. The description covers the essential context and guidance for reporting issues. It could be more explicit about the agent being the user, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions some parameter groups (logs, AI analysis, etc.) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: reporting FavCRM platform issues encountered by agents, listing specific issue types (missing MCP path, tool failure, confusing schema, etc.). It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all CRUD or other operations, not reporting.

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 provides explicit scenarios for when to use the tool (agent finds an issue). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context makes it clear, and no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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?