crm.create_leadCreate a private CRM lead in the selected project from the supplied contact and inquiry fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| source | No | mcp | |
| company | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| websites | No | ||
| lead_type | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| linkedin_url | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| additional_phone_numbers | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the behavioral detail that the lead is private and tied to a selected project, but it does not disclose duplicate handling, the effect of idempotency_key, or visibility semantics beyond 'private'. Moderate gap remains.
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?
A single sentence with no filler; it front-loads the verb and resource and scopes the action compactly. Every word earns its place.
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 14 parameters and zero schema description coverage, a one-line description is not enough for an agent to confidently call the tool. Required project_id, optional field usage, idempotency behavior, and the practical meaning of 'private' are all under-specified. The presence of an output schema covers return values but not input semantics.
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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it only groups them generically as 'contact and inquiry fields'. With 14 parameters and a single required project_id, the description does not clarify requiredness or the meaning of key fields like idempotency_key or source. The property names in the schema carry more semantic weight than the description.
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?
States a specific action ('Create'), a concrete resource ('CRM lead'), and the scope ('in the selected project'), which distinguishes it from sibling get/search/update lead tools. The phrase 'from the supplied contact and inquiry fields' also names the input category. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
The description makes the use case clear: create a new private lead in a project when contact/inquiry data is supplied. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the verb and scope are clear enough against the sibling list. Missing an explicit 'use update_lead to modify existing leads' reference prevents a 5.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.