Cria um OBJETO custom no CRM (além de contact/company/deal) e ganha CRUD/API automático. Passe key (api name, a-z/0-9/_), label e opcionalmente fields (array JSON de definições de campo).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| module | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| display_field | No |
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 indicate it's not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that creating the object yields automatic CRUD/API, which reveals the side effect of object creation and API exposure. It doesn't describe reversibility or idempotency, but with annotations present, this is acceptable. The effect is clearly stated, adding value beyond the annotations.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids fluff and directly states the key parameters and their formats. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy.
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 tool that creates a custom object with optional field definitions, the description conveys the high-level outcome (CRUD/API) but lacks details on the exact format of 'fields', the meaning of 'module', 'account', and 'display_field', and what the response contains. Since there is no output schema, these gaps affect completeness. It adequately covers the main creation flow but leaves advanced configuration undocumented.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'key' (api name with allowed characters), 'label', and 'fields' (JSON array of field definitions). However, it omits 'module', 'account', and 'display_field', which are not described anywhere. This partial coverage adds meaning for the most important parameters but leaves three unexplained, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.
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 clearly states the tool creates a custom object in the CRM beyond the standard contact/company/deal, and that it gains automatic CRUD/API. This distinguishes it from record creation tools (crm_create_records) and object management tools (crm_update_object, crm_delete_object). The verb 'Cria' is specific and the resource is explicit.
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 description provides clear context: use this when you need a custom object beyond standard ones. It mentions the need for 'key' and 'label' and optionally 'fields', giving basic usage direction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like crm_add_field for adding fields to existing objects, nor does it state when not to use it. It's clear enough for the primary use case.
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.
The CRM tools are mostly distinct (CRUD, file operations, schema management), but there is potential confusion between crm_describe, crm_get_object, and crm_list_objects, and between crm_upload_file/crm_upload_from_url/crm_confirm_upload. However, descriptions clarify these somewhat. The set also includes auxiliary tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) that are clearly separate.
Most tools follow the crm_verb_noun pattern (crm_create_records, crm_delete_records, crm_update_records, etc.). Some deviations like authenticate, connect, toolkit_info, and show_version lack the crm_ prefix, and bulk support is noted in descriptions but not in names. Still, the convention is fairly consistent.
With 36 tools, the count is on the heavier side. The CRM-specific tools (about 27) cover CRUD, schema, relationships, files, and usage, which is reasonable for a full CRM API. However, the inclusion of platform-level tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) adds breadth that goes beyond CRM-specific functionality, making the set feel larger than necessary.
The tool surface is quite complete: full CRUD for records, objects, fields, files, relationships, search, and usage. The descriptions mention validations and bulk support, and the crm_describe tool prompts agents to understand schema first. Gaps are minimal—for instance, no explicit bulk delete for records but crm_delete_records supports bulk via ids. Overall, the domain is well-covered.