Atualizar comentário do lead (PUT /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?
The description adds the write/change nature ('[write, altera dados]') and bulk execution via ids, which goes slightly beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose response behavior, side effects, permissions, partial-failure behavior, or edge cases, so transparency is basic rather than rich.
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 only two sentences, front-loads the operation and endpoint, and adds bulk support as a separate focused note. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
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 five parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It clearly conveys the core update purpose and bulk capability but lacks critical parameter semantics and usage details for a mutation tool.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The endpoint path helps clarify leadId and id, and the bulk-support sentence explains ids, but body and account are not described. This is insufficient compensation for five undocumented parameters.
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 'Atualizar comentário do lead' (update lead comment) and specifies the exact endpoint (PUT /api/v1/leads/{leadId}/notes/{id}). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like datacrazy_leads_notes_create/delete/list and makes the resource and operation 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 implies its use when updating an existing lead note, especially via the update verb and endpoint. It does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention alternatives such as create/delete/list sibling tools, so usage context is only implied.
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.