Create a new company in Teamleader Focus CRM by providing company name, contact details, VAT number, and tags.
Create a new company in Teamleader Focus
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Company name | |
| tags | No | Tags to assign | |
| No | Primary email address | ||
| phone | No | Phone number | |
| website | No | Website URL | |
| language | No | Language code (e.g. 'en', 'fr', 'nl') | |
| vat_number | No | VAT number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are completely absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutation, but there is no mention of side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens to existing data. The description provides no transparency beyond the bare action.
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 extremely concise at a single sentence, which is appropriately sized for a simple create operation. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it lacks any structural elements like lists or sections, though that is not necessary for such a short description.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the result of creation, any required context like authentication, or what happens on success or failure. An agent calling this tool would have no idea what to expect after invocation, making it inadequate for a mutation with multiple inputs.
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 100%, so all 7 parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions like 'Company name', 'Tags to assign', etc. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema fully covers them, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'create' and resource 'company' in 'Teamleader Focus', which is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling create tools like create_contact or create_project by naming the specific resource. However, it lacks additional differentiation or context about the scope of a company object, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teamleader_create_contact or teamleader_create_project. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would make this the right choice. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.