Skip to main content
Glama

twenty

by io.usefulapi

Create opportunity

twenty_create_opportunity
Destructive

Create a new opportunity (deal). name is required; amountMicros combines with currencyCode into amount:{amountMicros,currencyCode}. Twenty REST: POST /rest/opportunities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe opportunity name (required).
extraNoPassthrough object of additional/custom fields merged into the request body verbatim.
stageNoPipeline stage — e.g. SCREENING, MEETING, PROPOSAL, NEGOTIATION, CUSTOMER (custom pipelines vary).
closeDateNoExpected close date (ISO 8601).
companyIdNoId of the associated company.
amountMicrosNoOpportunity amount in micros (× 1,000,000). Sent as amount:{amountMicros,currencyCode}.
currencyCodeNoCurrency code for the amount (default USD; only sent when amountMicros is provided).USD
pointOfContactIdNoId of the point-of-contact person.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'Create a new opportunity', implying a non-destructive operation, while annotations declare destructiveHint: true. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, no further behavioral context is provided (e.g., side effects, auth requirements).

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant text. However, it is slightly dense with backticks, but still efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 8 parameters and a nested object, the description is minimal and fails to explain return behavior or consequences. The annotation contradiction further reduces completeness, as the agent receives conflicting signals about the tool's safety.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds a note about amountMicros+currencyCode combining into amount, but that is already present in the schema. No meaningful additional semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('opportunity (deal)'), distinguishing it from sibling create tools for other entities. It also mentions the required `name` field, which is helpful.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_opportunity, or any context about prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely declarative.

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

All twenty 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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool follows a clear action-entity pattern, so there is no overlap; even the metadata listing is distinct from record operations. No two tools could be confused.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use the twenty_<verb>_<entity> convention with verbs create/get/list/update, in lowercase snake_case. Naming is perfectly consistent across the set.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but justified by five core entities each needing create/get/list/update. However, the count feels a bit heavy, especially without delete tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers create, read, and list for all entities, and update for most, but lacks delete operations entirely and does not support updating notes. These are notable gaps in full lifecycle management.

Resources