Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agenthouse-org

dealdesk-mcp

by agenthouse-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

dealdesk.log_email

Log inbound or outbound emails on a desk card as email_incoming/email_outgoing status-update touchpoints, saving direction, from/to, subject, and body.

Instructions

Log an inbound or outbound email on a desk card as a status-update touchpoint (email_incoming / email_outgoing). Persists structured from/to (plus subject/text). Do not use add_card_note for email logs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoRecipient email or label (persisted as statusUpdate.to)
bodyNoAlias for text
fromNoSender email or label (persisted as statusUpdate.from)
textNoEmail body (maps to touchpoint note)
cardIdYesDesk card id
subjectNoEmail subject
directionNoincoming → email_incoming; outgoing → email_outgoing (default incoming)
projectIdNoDealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects.
contactIdsNo
occurredAtNoISO datetime (defaults to now)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / from / description
      Previous value: -"Sender email or label"New value: +"Sender email or label (persisted as statusUpdate.from)"
    • 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 / properties / to / description
      Previous value: -"Recipient email or label (e.g. us)"New value: +"Recipient email or label (persisted as statusUpdate.to)"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "cardId"
-]New value: +[
+  "cardId"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (creates a status-update touchpoint on the card and persists structured from/to plus subject/text), which is meaningful. However, it says nothing about auth/project scoping behavior, idempotency/deduplication, or what a repeat log does, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then persistence behavior, then the exclusion rule. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and sibling routing adequately, and the rich schema fills parameter details. Remaining gaps (result shape, project-scoping behavior) are minor given the schema coverage.

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 90%, so the schema already documents from/to/subject/text/direction/cardId/projectId. The description largely restates this (from/to plus subject/text) and adds little syntax or format detail beyond it. 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 (log) plus resource (inbound/outbound email) and the exact target object (desk card as a status-update touchpoint). It also names the sibling it is not (add_card_note), letting an agent disambiguate 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Provides an explicit anti-use rule ('Do not use add_card_note for email logs') that routes the agent away from the wrong sibling, and the opening clause implies when to use it. It stops short of contrasting with create_status_update or stating prerequisites, so it is a strong but not exhaustive usage guide.

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