Remove um objeto CUSTOM (objetos de sistema não podem ser removidos). Se houver registros, passe delete_records:true para apagar tudo junto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| delete_records | 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?
The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description says 'Remove' and advises using delete_records:true to 'delete everything', which is clearly destructive. This is an annotation contradiction. Beyond that, the description does not disclose other behaviors like irreversibility, side effects, or required permissions, and with annotations not covering destruction, it fails to provide necessary transparency.
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 a single, concise sentence with two clear clauses. It wastes no words, front-loads the primary action, and provides the key operational detail. Perfectly sized for the purpose.
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 the tool's destructive nature, the absence of return information, error cases, or confirmation of irreversibility is a significant gap. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness. The description is adequate for a simple delete but insufficient for a tool that can delete records en masse, especially without any output schema or safety disclosures.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'object' as a custom object and 'delete_records' as a flag to delete associated records, but does not explain 'account'. This adds partial meaning but leaves one parameter undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 removes a CUSTOM object, explicitly excluding system objects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_delete_records (which deletes records) and crm_update_object (which modifies objects). The verb 'Remove' and resource 'object' are specific and unambiguous.
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: it is used to remove custom objects, with an exclusion for system objects. It also gives explicit guidance on using the delete_records parameter to delete associated records. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like crm_delete_records or crm_update_object, though the context implies when to choose this tool.
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.