Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ActiveCampaign MCP

ActiveCampaign MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

create_a_task_outcome_1

Create a new task outcome by specifying a title and sentiment (Positive, Neutral, or Negative). Use this to define outcomes for task types in ActiveCampaign.

Instructions

🟡 WRITE · creates data · Tasktype Outcome Rels · POST /tasktypeOutcomeRels

WIP Create a task type - outcome relation

Creates a new record. Not idempotent — calling twice may create duplicates.

Create a new task type

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_a_task_outcome_1"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoRequest body (application/json).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-idempotence (idempotentHint false). The description explicitly adds 'Not idempotent — calling twice may create duplicates', which is consistent and useful, but no further behavioral details beyond that.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description contains a redundant header line, a 'WIP' prefix, and a conflicting final sentence ('Create a new task type'). It is not concise and wastes space on unclear or contradictory information.

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?

The description does not clearly identify the entity being created, lacks return value information, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools. Given the simple input schema and lack of output schema, more clarity is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% so parameters (title, sentiment) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is ambiguous and contradictory: it mentions both 'Create a task type - outcome relation' and 'Create a new task type', and the schema suggests creating an outcome with title and sentiment. The 'WIP' prefix indicates incompleteness. The purpose is not clearly stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_a_task_outcome or delete_a_task_type_outcome_relation. Lacks context for usage or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools