draft_outreachGenerate a personalized email or DM draft using a contact's CRM deal and last activity. Returns text only; sending is not supported.
Draft an email/DM for a contact using their CRM context (deal, last activity). Returns text only; this server has no ability to send messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tone | No | ||
| channel | No | ||
| purpose | Yes | ||
| contact_id | Yes | ||
| key_points | No | ||
| sender_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by stating output is text only and that the server has no send capability, preventing an agent from treating this as an outbound-action tool. It does not mention rate limits or whether drafting leaves any trace in the CRM.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped immediately after by the no-send caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the title beyond useful confirmation.
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 six-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers the behavioral side adequately (text-only return, no sending) but is silent on the parameter set an agent must fill in. It is minimum-viable: enough to know what the tool is, not enough to call it confidently without guessing at tone/purpose/channel semantics.
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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load and does not. It alludes to contact and channel ('email/DM') but says nothing about tone, purpose, key_points, or sender_name, leaving enum choices and constraints unexplained. With three enum parameters and no per-field guidance, an agent gets almost no help beyond the schema's literal names.
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?
The description pairs a specific verb (draft) with a specific resource (email/DM for a contact) and names the data it consumes (CRM deal, last activity). No sibling tool drafts messages, so an agent can separate this from log_activity, add_follow_up, or get_contact without opening a schema.
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?
It establishes clear usage context: use it when you need composed text for a contact, drawing on deal and last-activity context. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, but the emphasis that this server cannot send bounds the tool's role well enough for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.