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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses real behavior beyond the annotations: newlines are preserved and HTML/markdown is escaped, and it states the return shape { NoteId }. It does not explain the surprising destructiveHint: true, but nothing in the text contradicts it.
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?
A single compact sentence plus a return-value note, front-loaded with the action and resource and containing no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return value { NoteId } and the content-escaping semantics. The one omission is any explanation of the destructiveHint flag, which is atypical for a note-creation 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and this sets the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine meaning for the 'note' parameter by specifying escaping and newline handling, which the schema does not.
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 and resource — attach a note to a contact or company's history — and even names the underlying API operation (CreateNote). It is unambiguous versus siblings like lacrm_list_notes, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from neighboring creation tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'LACRM: CreateNote' is an API mapping, not usage context, so an agent gets no routing help.
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.