Skip to main content
Glama
gray-wilbee

fub-mcp

by gray-wilbee

create_group

Create a new CRM group with a name, member users, and optional lead-distribution settings such as round-robin or first-to-claim.

Instructions

Create a new group. (POST /groups)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the group.
typeNo`Agent` groups allow admins and agents and `Lender` groups allow lender role users.Agent
usersYesAn array of user IDs that will be members of this group.
extraBodyNoExtra raw JSON body fields not explicitly listed above — e.g. custom.* fields when creating/updating people or deals. Keys and values are sent as-is.
extraQueryNoExtra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is.
claimWindowNoNumber of seconds to allow someone to claim a lead in a first-to-claim group before reassigning. The default is 30 minutes (1800 seconds) with a minimum of 1 minute and maximum of 30 minutes.
distributionNoThe distribution model to utilize. (Note: Lender groups cannot be set to `first-to-claim`.)round-robin
defaultPondIdNoThe ID of the pond to assign unclaimed first-to-claim leads to after the claim window expires.
defaultUserIdNoThe ID of the user to assign unclaimed first-to-claim leads to after the claim window expires.
defaultGroupIdNoThe ID of the group to assign unclaimed first-to-claim leads to after the claim window expires.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a POST/create operation, but it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, defaults for claimWindow or distribution, whether the operation is idempotent, or what response an agent should expect.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one short sentence plus an endpoint hint. There is no wasted wording, and the core action is placed up front.

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?

Despite the rich schema, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage description does not state what the API returns on success, how errors appear, or how the extraBody/extraQuery parameters should be used in practice. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, this is under-specified and requires the agent to infer expected behavior from sibling patterns.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema thoroughly documents each of the 10 parameters, including defaults, enums, and special constraints such as Lender groups not supporting first-to-claim.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Create a new group," with the endpoint reinforcement of POST /groups. It is clear what operation the tool performsaren't distinguished from sibling tools such as update_group or create_team, but the create verb is unambiguous enough for basic selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_group, list_groups, or update_group. The phrase "Create a new group" only implies the obvious case, and no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over related group/team tools are provided.

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