Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agenthouse-org

dealdesk-mcp

by agenthouse-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

dealdesk.create_company

Creates a company in the customer directory from a legal name or alias; external ID is auto-generated when omitted, with optional tax ID and custom fields.

Instructions

Create a company in the customer directory. Send legalName or name at the top level (name maps to legalName). externalId is optional and auto-generated as local-company- when omitted — do not require fields.externalId.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoAlias for legalName when legalName is omitted (mapped server-side)
taxIdNo
fieldsNoOptional extras (customFields, addresses, …). Prefer top-level legalName/name; fields.legalName/fields.name are also accepted.
localeNo
legalNameNoLegal company name (required unless name is provided)
projectIdNoDealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects.
externalIdNoImmutable business key. Omit to auto-generate local-company-<uuid> (UI default). Not required.
displayNameNoDisplay name (defaults to legalName)
emailDomainsNo
registrationIdNo

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"
-]New value: +[]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose non-obvious server behavior: 'name' is aliased to 'legalName' server-side and externalId is auto-generated as local-company-<uuid> when omitted. However it says nothing about permissions required, whether creation is reversible, duplicate handling, or what happens to fields.legalName vs top-level conflicts beyond a hint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two highest-value calling gotchas (alias mapping and auto-generated externalId). No filler, though the em-dash clause about fields.externalId is slightly awkward phrasing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two most likely failure modes (which name field to send, omitting externalId) but omits practical concerns like the conditional requirement of projectId when multiple projects are authorized, and any response/identity information for the created company.

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 60%, so the schema documents some fields but the description must add meaning. It usefully clarifies the name/legalName alias and the externalId auto-generation default, but leaves taxId, locale, registrationId, emailDomains, and displayName without added context, and does not state that legalName or name is effectively required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a company in the customer directory'), which is clearly distinct from create_contact, create_case, and create_quote among the siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling or stating explicit boundaries, so it is clear but not differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use create_company versus patch_company or get_company/list_companies, nor on prerequisites such as required auth scope. The only 'use this way' advice is about request shape, which is parameter semantics rather than invocation context.

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