loops_create_contact_propertyCreates a custom contact property/field (additive schema change). Loops API: POST /v1/contacts/properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the custom property to create (required). | |
| type | Yes | Data type of the property (required). |
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 claims an 'additive schema change' (non-destructive), but annotations declare destructiveHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. Beyond this, no behavioral details like permissions, side effects, or reversibility are disclosed.
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 plus an API endpoint reference, with no unnecessary words. However, it could provide more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
For a tool marked as destructive with no output schema, the description should explain what happens after creation, potential impacts, or reversibility. It lacks completeness, especially given the annotation contradiction and the need for caution.
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 describes both parameters (name and type) adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 it creates a custom contact property/field, using the verb 'creates' and resource 'custom contact property/field'. It also specifies it's an additive schema change. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is self-evident from the name and context.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a property versus list or update existing ones. There are no prerequisites or usage conditions mentioned.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose and target resource (contacts, properties, lists, events, transactional emails, API key). No overlap or ambiguity in descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent 'loops_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case. Verbs are descriptive and nouns match the resource.
10 tools is well-scoped for the domain, covering contacts, properties, lists, events, transactional emails, and an API test. Neither sparse nor overloaded.
Covers core contact CRUD, property creation, listing, and sending capabilities. Minor gap: no update/delete for contact properties, but the surface handles primary workflows.