Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_create_account

Create a new account in the Pylon customer support platform by specifying account name, domains, owner, and tags for organization management.

Instructions

Create a new account in Pylon

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the account
domainsNoList of domains associated with the account
primary_domainNoPrimary domain
logo_urlNoURL of the account logo
owner_idNoID of the account owner
tagsNoTags to apply to the account

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:76-99 (registration)
    MCP tool registration for 'pylon_create_account', including input schema with Zod validation and the handler function that delegates to PylonClient.createAccount and formats the response.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_create_account',
    	'Create a new account in Pylon',
    	{
    		name: z.string().describe('The name of the account'),
    		domains: z
    			.array(z.string())
    			.optional()
    			.describe('List of domains associated with the account'),
    		primary_domain: z.string().optional().describe('Primary domain'),
    		logo_url: z.string().optional().describe('URL of the account logo'),
    		owner_id: z.string().optional().describe('ID of the account owner'),
    		tags: z
    			.array(z.string())
    			.optional()
    			.describe('Tags to apply to the account'),
    	},
    	async (params) => {
    		const result = await client.createAccount(params);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Core handler logic in PylonClient for creating an account via POST request to the Pylon API /accounts endpoint.
    async createAccount(
    	data: Partial<Account> & { name: string },
    ): Promise<SingleResponse<Account>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<Account>>('POST', '/accounts', data);
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of an Account object, used for typing the createAccount parameters and response.
    export interface Account {
    	id: string;
    	name: string;
    	domains?: string[];
    	primary_domain?: string;
    	logo_url?: string;
    	owner_id?: string;
    	channels?: object[];
    	custom_fields?: object;
    	external_ids?: object[];
    	tags?: string[];
    }
  • Generic private request method in PylonClient that handles all HTTP API calls, including authentication and error handling, used by createAccount.
    private async request<T>(
    	method: string,
    	path: string,
    	body?: object,
    ): Promise<T> {
    	const url = `${PYLON_API_BASE}${path}`;
    	const headers: Record<string, string> = {
    		Authorization: `Bearer ${this.apiToken}`,
    		'Content-Type': 'application/json',
    		Accept: 'application/json',
    	};
    
    	const response = await fetch(url, {
    		method,
    		headers,
    		body: body ? JSON.stringify(body) : undefined,
    	});
    
    	if (!response.ok) {
    		const errorText = await response.text();
    		throw new Error(
    			`Pylon API error: ${response.status} ${response.statusText} - ${errorText}`,
    		);
    	}
    
    	return response.json() as Promise<T>;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool (creation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or system behavior. The combination of being a write operation with zero structured metadata means the description should provide more context about what happens when this tool is invoked and what to expect in response.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how primary_domain relates to domains), format requirements, or constraints. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new account in Pylon'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like pylon_update_account or pylon_delete_account by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools like pylon_create_contact or pylon_create_team, which would require mentioning what makes an account distinct from those other entities.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing accounts), or direct alternatives like pylon_update_account for modifications. With multiple sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server