Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_client

Add a new client to Rocket Matter by providing required name and optional details like email, address, and contact information.

Instructions

Create a client. fields_json: JSON object. Required: name. Optional: displayName, contactSalutation, contactTitle, entityName, address1, clientAsEntity, email, secondaryEmail, cellPhoneNumber.

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": {
      "fields_json": "<fields_json>"
    },
    "name": "create_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fields_jsonYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, or what happens if required fields are missing. The description implies creation but lacks depth.

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 description is relatively short but poorly structured; it reads like a bullet list without formatting. Every sentence has some value, but the presentation could be cleaner. It is not verbose, but not optimally concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter), the description should clearly explain the expected input and output. There is no mention of the return value despite the presence of an output schema. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists fields to include in fields_json but does not explain the expected format, whether it must be a JSON string, or how to structure the JSON. This leaves the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 'Create a client.' and lists the fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_client or delete_client.

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 other create_* tools (e.g., create_contact, create_matter). No preconditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools