SparkLaunch

Update CRM contact

crm.update_contact

Destructive

Overwrite the supplied profile fields on a private CRM contact in the selected project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	No
`notes`	No
`phone`	No
`title`	No
`source`	No
`websites`	No
`last_name`	No
`person_id`	Yes
`first_name`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`person_type`	No
`linkedin_url`	No
`source_detail`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`organization_id`	No
`confirmation_token`	No
`additional_phone_numbers`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 31, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Overwrite' matches that destructive profile. It adds useful context that only supplied fields are overwritten and that the contact is private, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or reversibility.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and object appear first, and the scoping detail is efficiently packed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 17 parameters, zero schema descriptions, a destructive annotation, and no usage alternatives, this one-sentence description is far from complete. It does not clarify required fields, idempotency behavior, or the meaning of unusual fields, so an agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 17 parameters, so the description carries the burden of parameter explanation. Saying 'supplied profile fields' adds only a vague category label and does not compensate for the lack of per-parameter meaning, especially for non-profile fields like idempotency_key and confirmation_token.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Overwrite'), resource ('CRM contact'), and scope ('selected project'), which clearly conveys the operation. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it falls just short of the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crm.update_lead, crm.add_contact_note, or crm.get_contact. There is no when/when-not, prerequisite, or alternative mention.

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

All SparkLaunch tools Inspect

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

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?