huly-mcp-selfhost

create_person

Create a contact person in a Huly workspace by providing first name, optional last name, city, and communication channels.

Instructions

Create a contact person

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "firstName": "<firstName>"
    },
    "name": "create_person"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	No
`channels`	No
`lastName`	No
`firstName`	Yes
`workspace`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=false and a title, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does not explain that workspace and firstName are required, what happens if the person already exists, whether channels are created atomically with the person, or what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. Brevity here comes at the cost of missing required information rather than from disciplined editing.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a five-parameter mutation with no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent would have to inspect the raw schema to learn which fields are mandatory and how channels must be shaped.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It says nothing about the required workspace/firstName, the optional lastName default, city, or the nested channel provider/value objects, so it adds zero meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a contact person"), so the agent knows this makes a person record rather than a channel or organization. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like create_organization or add_contact_channel, and "contact person" is not defined further.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus updating an existing person (get_person/update_person) or when to add channels separately via add_contact_channel. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely on its own.

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

Deploy Server