Excluir comentário do lead (DELETE /api/v1/leads/{leadId}/notes/{id}). [write, altera dados]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| leadId | Yes | ||
| account | 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 lack destructiveHint or idempotentHint, so the description must disclose effects. It states 'altera dados' (changes data) but does not clarify irreversibility, whether permissions are required, or what happens to related data. Bulk support is noted but not detailed (e.g., partial failures). No annotation contradiction, but transparency is minimal.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bulk support note is helpful. It is concise with no fluff, though a bit more context could be added without sacrificing brevity.
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 there are 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions bulk support but does not clarify parameter usage (e.g., body, account) or behavior for batch operations. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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%, and there are 5 parameters (leadId, id, ids, body, account) with only leadId and id required. The description mentions bulk via 'ids' but does not clarify the role of 'body' or 'account'. With zero schema descriptions, the tool description should compensate, but it only hints at ids for bulk, leaving semantics unclear.
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 deletes a lead comment/note via DELETE /api/v1/leads/{leadId}/notes/{id}. It distinguishes from 'update' and 'create' notes by indicating deletion, and the endpoint path clarifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate among delete siblings for attachments, activities, or businesses, but the resource (notes) is clear.
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 mentions the HTTP method DELETE and marks it as [write], implying it modifies data. It also notes bulk support. However, it does not explicitly state under what circumstances to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or potential cautions (e.g., irreversible deletion). Usage is implied but not elaborated.
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.
Every tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., leads_create vs businesses_create). Even nested tools like leads_activities_list are clearly scoped from general activities_list. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All resource tools follow the exact pattern 'datacrazy_<resource>_<action>' with actions being create, get, list, patch, update, delete, plus a few composite verbs like finish_create or actions_win_create. The naming is uniform and predictable.
70 tools is far beyond the usual 3-15 range for an MCP server, making it overwhelming and unwieldy for agents. Although the scope is broad (full CRM), the sheer count exceeds the recommended threshold for effective tool discovery.
Most resources have full CRUD coverage (leads, activities, tags, lists, products, businesses, business_loss_reasons). Some gaps exist: attendants only have get/list, conversations lack delete/update, and pipelines are read-only. These are minor and workable, but not complete lifetime coverage.