This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin
Restore a previously deleted CMS post category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| categoryId | Yes | Category 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 already show this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds only 'previously deleted' as context but no details on side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions. Does not explain what 'restore' entails (e.g., does it restore associated posts?).
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?
Extremely concise (10 words), front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose. Ideal for a straightforward restoration tool.
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?
With only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (category must be deleted, not active) and potential side effects on associated posts. Still, for a simple restore action, it is mostly complete.
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 covers the single parameter with description 'Category ID'. Description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clear verb 'Restore' and specific resource 'CMS post category'. The phrase 'previously deleted' clarifies the state. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_category and other restore_* tools.
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?
Implies usage for restoring deleted categories but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like update_category, or any constraints such as time limits or permissions.
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.