Add a note to a customer's CRM record by email, capturing context and decisions for future reference.
Add a note to a customer's CRM record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| justification | No | Why you are making this call, in one sentence. The person who approves it reads this; some calls need it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Input schema / properties / justificationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Why you are making this call, in one sentence. The person who approves it reads this; some calls need it.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.3.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Add' implies mutation, but it does not disclose permissions, whether the note is appended, whether the customer must exist, or if the operation is reversible. Minimal context beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One efficient, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than optimal conciseness; structurally it is tight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, parameter roles, justification context, and return behavior, leaving the agent without essential operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only justification has a description). The description adds no parameter meaning; email and note remain undocumented, and it does not explain the justification requirement, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Add) and resource (note to a customer's CRM record). It is distinguishable from siblings like crm_find_customer and crm_update_plan, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself or name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent is not told whether it must first find the customer with crm_find_customer or what conditions require this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.