Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agenthouse-org

dealdesk-mcp

by agenthouse-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

dealdesk.create_status_update

Create comments, tasks, or touchpoints (calls, meetings, emails) on DealDesk cards, companies, or contacts to track activity and progress.

Instructions

Create a status update: comment, task, or touchpoint (phone_call, meeting, email_incoming, email_outgoing, misc). Prefer dealdesk.log_email for inbound/outbound email logs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEmail recipient (email_incoming / email_outgoing); persisted as a structured field
bodyNoRequired for type=comment
fromNoEmail sender (email_incoming / email_outgoing); persisted as a structured field
noteNoTouchpoint note / email body
typeYes
dueAtNoISO datetime for tasks
titleNoRequired for type=task
cardIdNoAlias for entityId when logging on a desk card
subjectNoTouchpoint subject (email subject)
entityIdNoTarget entity id (or use cardId for desk-card)
projectIdNoDealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects.
contactIdsNo
entityTypeNoDefaults to desk-card
occurredAtNoISO datetime (touchpoints; defaults to now)
recurrenceNo
descriptionNoOptional task description
participantsNoTouchpoint participants (meetings/calls). For email prefer from/to; participants may still be set as from → to for compatibility.
assigneeUserIdNo
touchpointTypeNoRequired for type=touchpoint
mentionedUserIdsNo
parentStatusUpdateIdNoRoot comment id when replying

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / from
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Email sender (email_incoming / email_outgoing); persisted as a structured field",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / participants / description
      Previous value: -"Touchpoint participants (e.g. from → to for email)"New value: +"Touchpoint participants (meetings/calls). For email prefer from/to; participants may still be set as from → to for compatibility."
    • 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."
    • addedInput schema / properties / to
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Email recipient (email_incoming / email_outgoing); persisted as a structured field",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "type"
-]New value: +[
+  "type"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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, and it says nothing about side effects: whether comments notify mentionedUserIds, whether tasks are assigned/reminded, whether recurrence spawns future records, or what permissions/project scoping the create requires. For a 21-parameter mutation tool this leaves the agent guessing about consequences.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and subtypes, then the routing rule. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a mutation tool with 21 parameters, 4 enums, no annotations and no output schema, the description omits any explanation of how the many optional fields interact (e.g., comment vs task vs touchpoint field requirements, project authorization) and gives no notion of the result. It is too thin for this complexity.

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 description coverage is 76%, so the schema already documents most parameters (from/to, body, note, dueAt, touchpointType, occurredAt, participants). The description only restates the touchpoint enum, adding no new meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (create a status update) and immediately enumerates the three subtypes (comment, task, touchpoint) plus the touchpoint enum values. It also names the sibling it is not (dealdesk.log_email) and the condition that selects that sibling, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Provides one explicit routing rule: prefer dealdesk.log_email for inbound/outbound email logs. That is a genuine when-to-use-alternative statement, but there is no guidance on choosing between comment, task and touchpoint, nor on prerequisites such as project scoping or permissions.

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