rd-station-crm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rdstation_create_contact

Create a contact in RD Station CRM by submitting contact data with name, emails, phones, and organization.

Instructions

Create a contact in RD Station CRM. contact is the raw request body per the RD Station CRM API (e.g. { name, emails: [{ email }], phones: [{ phone, type }], organization_id, title }).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contact": "<contact>"
    },
    "name": "rdstation_create_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contact`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does signal mutation via 'Create' and describes the request body format, but it does not disclose side effects, duplicate handling, authentication needs, validation behavior, or what happens on success or failure.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful payload example without over-explaining.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter create operation, the description covers the core request shape well. However, there is no output schema, no mention of return values, and no caveats about required fields, duplicate contacts, or API-specific failure modes, so some agent-relevant context is still missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema itself is generic (an unconstrained object). The description compensates by explaining that `contact` is the raw request body per the RD Station CRM API and by giving a concrete example with nested fields such as `emails` and `phones`. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it is not exhaustive.

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 contact in RD Station CRM.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, update, or delete contacts, and the first sentence leaves no doubt about the operation.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' and the sibling context, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. No guidance is given about whether to prefer this over update when a contact may already exist, or about prerequisites such as required fields or organization IDs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server