Skip to main content
Glama

Mob (Demo)

by io.github.benkaiser

activity_manage

Create, get, update, delete, or restore an activity/interaction. • action="create": Record a new activity. Requires type, occurred_at, participant_contact_ids. Optional title, description, duration_minutes, location, activity_type_id. • action="get": Get full details of an activity. Requires id. • action="update": Update an activity. Requires id. Optional type, title, description, occurred_at, duration_minutes, location, participant_contact_ids. • action="delete": Soft-delete an activity. Requires id. • action="restore": Restore a soft-deleted activity. Requires id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe activity ID (required for "get", "update", "delete", "restore")
typeNoType of interaction (required for "create", optional for "update")
titleNoTitle (e.g. "Coffee at Blue Bottle")
actionYesAction to perform
locationNoWhere it happened
descriptionNoDescription or notes
occurred_atNoWhen it happened (ISO date/datetime) (required for "create", optional for "update")
activity_type_idNoCustom activity type ID
duration_minutesNoDuration in minutes
participant_contact_idsNoContact IDs of participants (required for "create", optional for "update")

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses soft-delete behavior and the existence of restore, which is valuable, but it omits response/return behavior, error conditions, permissions, or side effects beyond the operation itself.

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?

The description is a compact bulleted list, front-loaded with the full action list, and every sentence contributes practical information. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 10-parameter, 5-action dispatch tool with no output schema, the description covers all action branches, required vs. optional fields, and soft-delete semantics. It lacks return-value expectations for create/update/delete/restore and explicit sibling exclusions, which would make it fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already declares (e.g., 'id is required for get/update/delete/restore'), though it aggregates this information into per-action rules. It adds little new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Create, get, update, delete, or restore an activity/interaction,' giving a specific verb+resource. The bulleted actions clearly distinguish this from siblings like activity_list (which lists) and batch_create_activities (which batches creates).

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?

Each action is paired with explicit required and optional parameters, so the agent knows which action and fields to use for a given scenario. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or say 'when not to use this tool' (e.g., for bulk creation use batch_create_activities).

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

All Mob (Demo) 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct by entity, but contact_get and contact_timeline overlap significantly, and debt_manage's action='list' duplicates what other entities do with a dedicated list tool. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity, though.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and readable, but they mix conventions: noun_verb (contact_create), verb_noun (batch_create_activities), and descriptive phrases (contacts_needing_attention). The noun_manage pattern is dominant, but the lack of uniformity makes the naming less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the surface is very large, even for a full-featured CRM. Many tools bundle multiple actions, but the sheer number forces an agent to consider many options, increasing selection difficulty and cognitive load.

Completeness5/5

The server provides comprehensive CRM coverage: contacts, activities, notes, tasks, reminders, gifts, debts, relationships, tags, custom fields, notifications, settings, and exports. It supports batch operations, duplicate detection, merge, and special queries, leaving few if any obvious gaps.

Resources