Add an existing contact or company to a project as its customer. Specify the project ID, customer type, and customer ID to associate the correct customer.
Add a customer (contact or company) to a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The project ID | |
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID | |
| customer_type | Yes | Customer type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., whether adding an existing customer overwrites or fails), permission requirements, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the essential action, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It lacks information about return values, side effects, error conditions, and when to use alternatives. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect usage.
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?
The input schema already describes all three parameters (id, customer_type, customer_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Add') and resource ('customer to a project'), with the clarification that the customer can be a contact or company. It clearly distinguishes from related siblings like teamleader_remove_project_customer and teamleader_add_project_owner.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as teamleader_add_project_owner or teamleader_link_contact_to_company. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the project must exist, customer must exist) or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.