lacrm_create_noteAttach a plain-text note to a contact or company's history (newlines kept, HTML/markdown escaped). Returns { NoteId }. LACRM: CreateNote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | The note text. | |
| contact_id | Yes | The contact or company id (a long numeric Uid — always pass it as a string). | |
| date_displayed | No | When the note should appear in history, ISO 8601 date-time. Default: now. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, which is counterintuitive for an append operation, and the description usefully clarifies that content is appended to history with newlines preserved and HTML/markdown escaped. It also names the return value ({ NoteId }), adding meaningful behavior beyond the single annotation. It stops short of explaining why the mutation is marked destructive or any permission requirements.
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?
Three compact sentences with no filler, and the behavioral essentials (plain-text handling, return shape) are front-loaded immediately after the core purpose.
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?
Params are fully covered by the schema, and the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the return value. For a small 3-param tool this is nearly complete, though it could say more about the destructive annotation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description confirms the tool targets a contact or company id, mildly reinforcing the schema, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (attach) and resource (plain-text note) plus scope (a contact or company's history). The 'plain-text, newlines kept, HTML/markdown escaped' detail makes the behavior concrete and distinguishable from sibling list_notes, which is a different operation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs lacrm_list_notes, lacrm_create_task, or other create_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only implied by the verb 'attach'.
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.