sevdesk MCP Server

create_contact

Add a new contact to sevdesk by specifying category (customer, supplier, partner) and optional details like name and description.

Instructions

Create a new contact in sevdesk

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": {
      "categoryId": "<categoryId>"
    },
    "name": "create_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`surename`	No
`categoryId`	Yes	Category ID (3 = customer, 4 = supplier, 28 = partner)
`familyname`	No
`description`	No
`customerNumber`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the creation action but omits behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects (e.g., auto-numbering, duplicate checks), or what happens on validation failure.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is too minimal to be valuable. There is no wasted text, but it lacks necessary detail.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain return values, required fields beyond categoryId, or error conditions, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is low (17%), and the description adds no parameter details. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema information on parameters like name, surename, familyname, description, and customerNumber.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new contact') with the system context ('sevdesk'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like update_contact or delete_contact.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions where creation should be avoided.

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