crm.update_leadOverwrite the supplied profile and workspace fields on a private CRM lead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| lead_id | Yes | ||
| message | No | ||
| websites | No | ||
| lead_type | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| linkedin_url | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| confirmation_token | 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 declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context by clarifying that only supplied profile and workspace fields are overwritten and that the lead is private, which goes beyond the structured hints and does not contradict them.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and has no fluff, but for a destructive 17-parameter operation it is arguably too sparse. It is concise without being wasteful, though it sacrifices useful context.
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?
Given 17 parameters, a destructive annotation, no parameter descriptions, and many sibling tools, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the roles of required lead_id/project_id, null-clearing behavior, or how this relates to create/search sibling tools, though the presence of an output schema lowers the need to document return values.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0% and 17 parameters, the description needed to compensate but only gestures at 'profile and workspace fields' without naming or explaining lead_id, project_id, idempotency_key, confirmation_token, or the nullable clear-field semantics. It adds little beyond the parameter titles already present in the schema.
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 verb ('Overwrite'), a resource ('a private CRM lead'), and the scope of the change ('supplied profile and workspace fields'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as crm.create_lead, crm.get_lead, and crm.update_contact.
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 wording implies use on an existing lead whose fields need to be overwritten, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over crm.create_lead or crm.update_contact, nor does it state prerequisites such as the lead needing to already exist. The usage context is only implied, not spelled out.
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.