Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ActiveCampaign MCP

ActiveCampaign MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_a_custom_deal_field_value

Idempotent

Update a custom field value for a deal by specifying its ID and the new field value or currency. This modifies the existing record in place.

Instructions

🟡 WRITE · updates data · Deal Custom Field Data · PUT /dealCustomFieldData/{id}

Update a custom field value

Modifies an existing record in place. Idempotent.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_a_custom_deal_field_value"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the custom fields value to update
bodyNoRequest body (application/json).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Modifies an existing record in place,' which is consistent but adds limited extra context. No contradictions, but could disclose more about authentication or error states.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very concise with front-loaded icons and HTTP method. It accomplishes its purpose without verbosity, though it could include a brief note on parameters or response without becoming lengthy.

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 the tool has nested parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain how to construct the body or what the response contains, leaving gaps that the schema alone may not fully address for an agent.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (id and body). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 it updates a custom field value for deals, with HTTP method and idempotency noted. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_a_custom_field_value' or 'bulk_update_a_custom_deal_field_value', which reduces specificity.

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 versus alternatives such as create or bulk update tools. The description lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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