Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agenthouse-org

dealdesk-mcp

by agenthouse-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

dealdesk.add_card_note

Add a structured note with an optional title and required body to a DealDesk card, keeping card-specific context organized. For descriptions or email logging, use the dedicated card or email tools.

Instructions

Add a structured note to a desk card (title + body). For the main card description field, use dealdesk.patch_card with description. Do not use notes to log emails — use dealdesk.log_email (or create_status_update with touchpoint email_incoming/email_outgoing).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesNote body (required)
titleNoNote title (optional, max 120 chars)
cardIdYes
projectIdNoDealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project)"New value: +"DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "cardId",
-  "text"
-]New value: +[
+  "cardId",
+  "text"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope exclusions (notes are not emails, not the description field), but for a write operation it says nothing about permissions, whether notes are append-only/immutable, notification side effects, or auth requirements. Additive semantics are implied by 'Add' but not stated.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the patch_card alternative, then the email anti-pattern. No filler and well front-loaded.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and routing thoroughly, and the schema handles the projectId authorization nuance. It is slightly short on behavioral disclosure (permissions, idempotency) that annotations would otherwise have supplied, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 75%: text, title, and projectId are documented in the schema, but cardId has no description anywhere. The description's '(title + body)' merely restates the schema and adds no format, length, or id-sourcing detail beyond it. Baseline 3 fits given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a structured note to a desk card') plus the shape of the payload (title + body). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings patch_card, log_email, and create_status_update, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use patch_card with description for the main card description, and do not use notes to log emails (route to log_email or create_status_update with touchpoint values). This is exactly the alternative-routing an agent needs.

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