Skip to main content
Glama

FavCRM

by io.favcrm

update_survey

Idempotent

Update a survey draft or publishing configuration. Use questionBlocks to replace the ordered form block list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNoURL slug
titleNoSurvey title
openAtNoOptional ISO datetime when the survey opens
statusNoSurvey status
closeAtNoOptional ISO datetime when the survey closes
settingsNoSurvey settings such as allowMultipleResponses, collectEmail, collectIpAddress, requireAuthentication, showProgress, successMessage
surveyIdYesSurvey ID
visibilityNoSurvey access mode
descriptionNoSurvey description
questionBlocksNoOrdered survey question blocks

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: questionBlocks replaces the entire ordered form block list, which is a key update behavior not obvious from the schema alone.

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, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical parameter behavior is stated succinctly.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the core intent and a key parameter behavior. Annotations and output schema fill in safety and return-value details, but the description could optionally mention prerequisites like the survey must exist or the effect of status changes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the questionBlocks parameter by explaining it replaces the ordered list, going beyond the schema's 'Ordered survey question blocks' description.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('a survey draft or publishing configuration'), distinguishing it from create_survey and archive_survey. It also adds specific scope by mentioning questionBlocks replacement.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: when updating an existing survey's draft or publishing configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for the primary use case.

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

All FavCRM toolsInspect
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

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.

Resources