Skip to main content
Glama
aaronsb

Salesforce MCP Server

by aaronsb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

describe_object

Retrieve the complete metadata schema for a Salesforce object, optionally including all standard and custom fields, with filtering by business intent and pagination support.

Instructions

Get an object's full metadata, including every standard and custom field when includeFields is true. Returns the complete schema — exhaustive but unranked, and large on customised objects. To find out which fields this org actually populates, read salesforce://field-catalog/{objectName} instead; it is ranked and far smaller.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentNoBusiness intent — filters fields to only those relevant for this use case.
pageSizeNoNumber of fields per page when includeFields is true (default: 50)
objectNameYesAPI name of the Salesforce object
pageNumberNoPage number to retrieve when includeFields is true (default: 1)
includeFieldsNoWhether to include field metadata (default: false). When true, returns all available fields including custom fields, their types, and relationships.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.2
  2. Removedv0.7.2
  3. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It states that the output is a complete schema, exhaustive but unranked, and potentially large. It does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, but the tool name and 'describe' semantics strongly imply no mutation.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loads the core purpose. It provides the key distinguishing information about the alternative field-catalog tool without unnecessary filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description gives enough context for an agent to decide when to use this tool, including the caveat that the full schema can be large and that a smaller, ranked alternative exists. There is no output schema, but for a describe/metadata tool the behavior is sufficiently clear.

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?

The schema covers all five parameters with 100% description coverage, so the additional description adds limited new semantic value. The includeFields parameter has a useful expanded explanation about custom fields and relationships, but the main description does not elaborate on intent, pageSize, or pageNumber beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool retrieves an object's full metadata, including all standard and custom fields when includeFields is true. It also distinguishes this from the field-catalog alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance to use the field-catalog alternative when the agent needs to know which fields are actually populated, rather than the full schema. It could be slightly more explicit about when to choose this tool over other object-listing or search tools, but the main contrast is clear.

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