Skip to main content
Glama
gray-wilbee

fub-mcp

by gray-wilbee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_people_relationship

Add a new relationship (e.g., spouse, partner) to a person's profile in Follow Up Boss, including contact details like email, phone, and address.

Instructions

Create a new relationship for a person. (POST /peopleRelationships)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoThe type of relationship, e.g. `Spouse`, `Brother`, `Partner` , etc.
emailsNoA list of email addresses associated with the relationship. (Specify type and value, `isPrimary` is not expected. The first email in the list will be the primary email address for the relationship.)
phonesNoA list of phone numbers associated with the relationship. (Specify type and value, `isPrimary` is not expected. The first phone in the list will be the primary phone number for the relationship.)
lastNameNoThe last/family name of the relationship.
personIdNoPerson ID this relationship is associated with.
addressesNoA list of addresses associated with the relationship. (This is the address where this person can be contacted, it is not the address of a property this person may be interested in selling or buying).
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.
firstNameNoThe first/given name of the relationship.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Create' and gives the endpoint; it does not disclose that personId is effectively required, what response is returned, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects occur beyond creating a relationship.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the action, and includes the endpoint for API context. It is efficient, though it sacrifices operational detail that would make it more useful.

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?

For a create tool with 9 parameters, nested objects (emails, phones, addresses), and no output schema or annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship model, clarify required inputs like personId, or describe return behavior, leaving agents to infer critical usage details.

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% and every parameter has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new relationship for a person' and includes the HTTP endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_person, update_people_relationship, and list_people_relationships.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'new' implies this tool is for creating rather than updating a relationship, but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_people_relationship or any prerequisites (e.g., personId appears conceptually required but is not marked required). Usage guidance is only implicit.

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