Create a company record in the CRM using a client slug, name, and optional custom fields to organize account data.
Cria uma nova empresa no CRM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nome da empresa | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) | |
| custom_fields_values | No | Array de campos customizados |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only states the mutation ('cria') and adds no detail on side effects, permissions, duplicate handling, or response behavior.
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?
A single concise sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple create operation.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema fully covers parameters, so the description is minimally viable. However, it omits what the call returns, whether client_slug must reference an existing client, and how custom_fields_values should be structured.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, client_slug, and custom_fields_values. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('cria') and resource ('nova empresa no CRM'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_company and get_companies. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the core purpose 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?
No guidance is provided about when to choose create_company over other create tools like create_lead or create_contact. Prerequisites such as requiring a valid client_slug are also not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.