Create a new client record or update an existing client’s contact details, phone, company, or notes in the Dropspot directory.
Add a new client to the directory or update an existing client’s contact details, phone, company, or notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the client | |
| Yes | Email address of the client | ||
| notes | No | Internal notes about this client | |
| phone | No | Optional phone number | |
| company | No | Company or business name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden for a mutation tool. It discloses nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared on update, duplicate handling, or what the call returns on create vs update.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the create case is stated before the update case. Minor looseness in 'contact details', which is vaguer than the schema's name/email.
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?
For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the identity/matching logic, partial-vs-full update semantics, and failure behavior — the exact things an agent needs to call it safely.
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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description's field list (phone, company, notes) matches the schema rather than extending it. It adds nothing about which fields act as the match key for the update path, leaving the most consequential parameter semantics unexplained.
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?
States a concrete verb pair (add/update) on a concrete resource (client) and enumerates the mutable fields (contact details, phone, company, notes). It is clearly the write-side counterpart to list_clients/get_client, though it never says how an existing client is identified, which blurs the create-vs-update boundary.
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 on when to use this versus list_clients/get_client or the template/intake siblings, and no explanation of the upsert decision rule. An agent calling this with an existing name/email has no way to predict whether it updates, duplicates, or errors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.