Skip to main content
Glama

Mob (Demo)

by io.github.benkaiser

tag_manage

Manage tags and contact tagging. • action="list": List all tags for the authenticated user. No additional fields required. • action="create": Create a new tag (or return existing if name already exists). Requires name. • action="update": Update a tag name. Requires id and name. • action="delete": Delete a tag. Requires id. • action="tag_contact": Tag a contact. Creates the tag if it doesn't exist. Requires name (the tag name) and contact_id. • action="untag_contact": Remove a tag from a contact. Requires id (the tag ID) and contact_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe tag ID (required for update, delete, untag_contact)
nameNoTag name (required for create and tag_contact)
actionYesAction to perform
contact_idNoThe contact ID (required for tag_contact and untag_contact)

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses useful idempotency behaviors such as 'Create a new tag (or return existing if name already exists)' and 'Creates the tag if it doesn't exist' for tag_contact. However, it does not mention return values, permissions, or side effects of delete/update, leaving some behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a short intro and bulleted actions, each earning its place with specific requirements. It is appropriately sized for a multi-action tool, though some bullet details duplicate the schema descriptions, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers all six actions and their parameter requirements, which is the core of what an agent needs. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values or error conditions, the description is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the tool's response, especially for actions like delete and update.

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 schema already explains each parameter's purpose and required actions. The description reinforces these mappings in the bullets but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format or constraints.

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 clearly states 'Manage tags and contact tagging' and enumerates six specific actions with their required fields. This distinguishes it from many siblings by showing it covers the full tag lifecycle, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related 'batch_tag_contacts' tool.

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 provides per-action instructions but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'batch_tag_contacts' or other tag-related tools. There are no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion statements, leaving the model to infer the appropriate context from the action list alone.

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