Skip to main content
Glama

create_resource

Create a bookable resource (room, equipment, vehicle). Used by services that have requiresResource=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesResource name (e.g. "Treatment Room A")
typeYesFree-form type label, e.g. "room", "equipment"
statusNoDefault active
capacityNoHow many concurrent bookings (default 1)
descriptionNoDescription

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesTool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
summaryYesOne-line human-readable summary of the action
renderTypeYesUI rendering hint for the result

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context about it being 'bookable' and the requiresResource linkage, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like uniqueness constraints or side effects.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place. The first states core purpose, the second provides usage context. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 straightforward create operation with a fully documented schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficient. It clearly explains what the resource is and when to use it, with no critical gaps.

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 fully documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Create' with clear object 'bookable resource' and gives examples (room, equipment, vehicle), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_service or create_booking. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 clear context: 'Used by services that have requiresResource=true.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping boundaries, such as generate_post_cover/attach_post_cover_from_job/upload_post_cover_from_url, update_deal/update_deal_stage/mark_deal_won/mark_deal_lost, and booking status transitions (confirm/cancel/complete/mark_no_show). The catch-all execute_tool adds further ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case convention (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*, delete_*, restore_*). Minor exceptions like 'clone' and 'execute_tool' are still readable and do not significantly break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 223 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped. Even for a full CRM platform, this many tools overwhelms context windows and makes tool selection impractical. It far exceeds the reasonable range for an MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The surface is broad but has notable gaps: no update_booking/delete_booking, no delete_product, no send_message/send_campaign (referenced but absent), and no delete_staff/resource. Some workflows dead-end or require manual approval steps.