Add or update a customer or investor in a local markdown CRM and append notes to their log, so solo founders can track pipeline stages and next steps.
Add or update a customer/investor in the local markdown CRM, appending to its log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| stage | Yes | ||
| company | No | ||
| nextStep | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful hints ('local markdown CRM', 'appending to its log'), but says nothing about what an update overwrites, whether fields merge or replace, permission/data-safety needs, or what is returned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant gaps.
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 with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the tool's complexity.
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 a mutation tool, 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry much more. What exists covers storage location and log-append behavior but omits field semantics, update/merge behavior, and result expectations.
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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It never explains name, stage (with its six-value enum), company, nextStep, or note, leaving the agent to guess at each field's meaning and the semantics of merging on update.
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 clear verb ('Add or update') and resource ('customer/investor in the local markdown CRM') with a specifically named storage mechanism and an append-to-log side effect. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling investor_update, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The word 'upsert' is only implied by 'Add or update', with no statement of when to prefer this over investor_update or pipeline_list, no prerequisites, and no when-not conditions. The agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.