Skip to main content
Glama

Salesforce

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Sf Create Record

sf_create_record
Idempotent

Create a new Salesforce record. Specify object type (e.g., 'Contact') and field values. Returns the new record ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesField name/value pairs (e.g., {"Name": "Acme", "Industry": "Tech"})
objectYesSObject type (e.g., "Account", "Contact")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoID of newly created record
errorNoError code if creation failed
messageNoError message if creation failed
successNoWhether record was created successfully

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds that it returns the new record ID, which is not in annotations. However, idempotentHint=true conflicts with the description's implication of creating a new record each call, but description does not explicitly claim idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple creation tool with complete schema, examples, and output schema, description adequately covers purpose, inputs, and output. No missing critical information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description merely reiterates that object type and field values are needed, adding little beyond schema examples and descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Create a new Salesforce record', specifying verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like sf_delete_record or sf_update_record by focusing on creation and mentioning return of new record ID.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies usage for creation but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when not to use sf_update_record). No direct comparison to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Salesforce toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes Salesforce CRUD tools with a large Pipeworx research and prediction-market platform, and several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical, grounded/validate_claim/deep_research cover similar lookup/verification territory, and the six polymarket/bet tools share edge-finding purposes with only subtle distinctions. An agent would need to read long descriptions carefully to pick the right one, so misselection risk is high.

Naming Consistency3/5

Salesforce tools follow a clear sf_verb_noun pattern, and the Pipeworx tools mostly use lowercase snake_case phrase names, but the conventions diverge: ask_pipeworx has no underscore, deep_research/entity_profile are noun phrases rather than verb-first, and the sf_* prefix is a separate naming family. It is still readable, but it is not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and most belong to a broad data/research platform rather than the Salesforce scope implied by the server name; only 8 tools are actually Salesforce CRUD/query operations. The count feels bloated for a coherent assistant, even if individual features are useful.

Completeness4/5

The Salesforce subset is complete: create/get/update/delete/query/search/describe/list-object cover the record lifecycle with no dead ends. The broader Pipeworx ecosystem also has strong coverage, including routing, grounded verification, research, entity resolution, memory, and subscriptions, with only minor gaps such as no direct citation-fetch tool and no Salesforce upsert/bulk operations.

Resources