Edita um objeto: rótulo, campo de exibição, módulo ou config de kanban (a key é imutável). Vale para objetos de sistema e custom.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| kanban | No | ||
| module | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| 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 already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds useful constraints—the key is immutable and system/custom objects are supported—but it does not disclose side effects, permission needs, or what happens when editing system objects.
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, front-loaded sentence that uses a colon to list editable fields and a parenthetical for the key constraint. It is concise, well-structured, and free of filler.
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 metadata update tool, the description covers purpose, scope, editable fields, and a key limitation. Still, it omits clarification of the object/account parameters and potential implications of editing system objects, so it is not fully complete.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantic meaning for label, display_field, module, and kanban, and warns that the key cannot be changed. However, it leaves the required 'object' parameter and the optional 'account' parameter semantically unexplained.
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 opens with 'Edita um objeto' (edits an object) and enumerates specific editable attributes: rótulo, campo de exibição, módulo, and kanban config. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like crm_define_object, crm_delete_object, crm_update_field, and crm_update_records.
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 states that it applies to both system and custom objects, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related tools like crm_update_field or crm_update_records, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
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.