Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agenthouse-org

dealdesk-mcp

by agenthouse-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

dealdesk.create_contact

Create a contact in the DealDesk customer directory by supplying a display name or first and last name; an external ID is optional and auto-generated when omitted.

Instructions

Create a contact in the customer directory. Requires displayName or name (or firstName/lastName). externalId is optional and auto-generated when omitted.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoAlias for displayName when displayName is omitted
emailNoPrimary email (mapped to emails[])
fieldsNoOptional extra fields merged into the create payload
localeNo
lastNameNo
firstNameNo
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-contact-<uuid>.
displayNameNo

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 says nothing about permissions, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate email/externalId, or what the tool returns. The auto-generation note on externalId is behavioral but is already repeated in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the required-field rule and the optional externalId behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 9-property mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential naming rule but omits permissions, error/duplicate behavior, and any note on the multi-project projectId requirement (left entirely to the schema). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 56%, and the description adds a genuine cross-field constraint not expressed in the schema: displayName or name (or firstName/lastName) is required despite zero formally required parameters. Otherwise it largely restates the externalId auto-generation behavior already documented in the schema, leaving other params (locale, projectId, fields) to the schema.

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+resource ('Create a contact in the customer directory'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_company, patch_contact, and get_contact. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the create-vs-patch-vs-get distinction is obvious from the name/verb pairing.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., patch_contact for editing, or when a contact already exists). The only conditional content is about required fields, which is parameter semantics, not usage routing.

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