crm.log_activityAppend a private note, email, call, or meeting activity to a contact or deal in the selected project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| deal_id | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| person_id | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| activity_type | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | 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?
The verb 'append' conveys an additive, non-destructive behavior, and annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about privacy and project scoping, but it does not disclose duplicate/idempotency behavior, permission needs, or what happens when neither person_id nor deal_id is provided.
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?
The description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information: 'append', the activity types, the target (contact/deal), and the project scope.
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?
For a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient on its own. It does not specify the required target combination, exact activity_type values, idempotency usage, or how this differs from similar note tools. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input contract remains under-explained.
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 must compensate. It mentions contact/deal and activity types, but does not explain idempotency_key, the allowed values for activity_type, nor the roles of content vs subject. With seven parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description names a specific action ('Append') and resource ('activity to a contact or deal in the selected project'), and even lists the activity types covered. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling note-adding tools such as crm.add_contact_note and crm.add_lead_note.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. It does not say when to choose this over crm.add_contact_note/crm.add_lead_note, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing an existing person_id or deal_id. The intended use is only implied by the purpose statement.
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.