Create a new client record in the BizDesk MCP back office with optional contact, company, address, phone, email, and notes fields; returns the saved client and its ID.
Add a new client. Returns the client with its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Contact person's name | |
| No | |||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| company | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful return behavior ('Returns the client with its id'), but it does not discuss duplicate handling, validation, required fields, or permissions.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the return behavior. There is no wasted text.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a six-parameter mutation tool with low schema description coverage, the description remains too sparse about parameter meaning and behavioral constraints.
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 17%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. With six parameters, only 'name' has a schema description, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining optional fields or defaults.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Add a new client'), making the core operation clear. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like update_client, find_clients, or get_client, but the creation intent is unambiguous.
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?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_client or find_clients, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'Add'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.