Add a new contact to Teamleader Focus CRM. Provide first and last name, then include email, phone, mobile, language, gender, or tags as needed.
Create a new contact in Teamleader Focus
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Tags to assign | |
| No | Primary email address | ||
| phone | No | Phone number | |
| gender | No | Gender | |
| mobile | No | Mobile number | |
| language | No | Language code (e.g. 'en', 'fr', 'nl') | |
| last_name | Yes | Last name | |
| first_name | Yes | First name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a contact, which is a mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, duplicate handling, or what happens on failure. The agent is left unaware of any operational nuances, making this a significant gap for a create 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 sentence with no fluff, which is efficient, but it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters. It is not front-loaded with important usage details; it only restates the obvious purpose. While it is concise, it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool's name.
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 the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not mention required fields, typical usage scenarios, or any integration context. Although the schema covers parameter definitions, the description fails to provide the broader context an agent needs to decide when and how to invoke this tool correctly, making it incomplete for a create operation.
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%, meaning the input schema already documents every parameter with meaningful descriptions (e.g., 'Primary email address', 'Language code'). The description adds no parameter-level information whatsoever, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3. It neither clarifies nor contradicts the schema, but it also does not compensate for any potential ambiguity.
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 ('Create'), a resource ('a new contact'), and the system ('Teamleader Focus'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_contact, delete_contact, and get_contact. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not elaborate on the fields or any special conditions, so it stops 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a company must exist first, nor does it contrast with update_contact or link_contact_to_company. The only implicit signal is that this is for creating a new contact, which is not enough to route an agent correctly in ambiguous situations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.