zoho_list_modulesList all available modules in Zoho CRM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | Error code if connection not available | |
| message | No | Error message if connection not available | |
| modules | No | List of available modules in Zoho CRM |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Error code if connection not available",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Error message if connection not available",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "modules": {
+ "description": "List of available modules in Zoho CRM",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Module information object",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. It does not mention specifics like return format, ordering, or that only module names are returned, offering no incremental 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, 'List all available modules in Zoho CRM,' with no redundant or extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it easy to parse.
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 trivial nature, zero parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core function without needing additional explanation about return types or behavior, which the output schema likely covers.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered and the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any parameter-related details.
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 lists all available modules in Zoho CRM, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('modules in Zoho CRM'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zoho_list_records, which list records instead.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zoho_list_records or zoho_search_records. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
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 five Zoho CRM tools are well-differentiated, but the 31 Pipeworx/Polymarket tools create heavy overlap (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all serve similar lookup purposes). Mixing two unrelated domains makes it easy for an agent to select a tool from the wrong group.
The Zoho tools share a consistent zoho_ prefix, but the remaining 31 tools follow no clear convention—ask_pipeworx, bet_research, deep_research, entity_profile, forget, scan_dependency, etc. mix noun-first, verb-first, and bare verb patterns without a unifying scheme.
36 tools is well beyond what a Zoho CRM server needs, and only 5 actually relate to Zoho CRM. The bulk are for unrelated data sources, prediction markets, memory management, and web generation, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.
The Zoho CRM surface includes create, get, list, and search, but omits essential operations like update, delete, and upsert. The other 31 tools cover a completely different domain, so the server fails to provide complete lifecycle coverage for its stated purpose.