Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Little Green Light MCP Server

Little Green Light MCP Server

by WillHeadlee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

add_keyword_to_constituent

Assign a keyword tag to a constituent record in Little Green Light CRM to categorize or track attributes.

Instructions

Assign a keyword (attribute/tag) to a constituent

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": {
      "constituent_id": "<constituent_id>",
      "keyword_id": "<keyword_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_keyword_to_constituent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyword_idYes
constituent_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description provides minimal behavioral info beyond annotations. It does not explain idempotency (idempotentHint=false) or what happens if called multiple times, such as potential duplication.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Highly 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 no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description is too brief. Missing details like duplicate handling, preconditions, and effects on related data.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but only vaguely identifies keyword_id and constituent_id. It adds no detail about value formats, required existence, or constraints.

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 'assign' and the resources 'keyword (attribute/tag) to a constituent'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_keyword_from_constituent'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites like the existence of keyword or constituent, nor does it clarify that it is for adding rather than removing.

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