Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

by soil-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

create_party

Create a new person or organisation in Capsule CRM, setting contact details, custom fields, and ownership in one call.

Instructions

Create a new person or organisation in Capsule CRM. For type='person', firstName or lastName is required (one suffices); the name field is silently ignored. For type='organisation', name is required and firstName/lastName/title/jobTitle are silently ignored. Passing organisationId pointing at a non-organisation party (e.g. another person's id) returns 404 'organisation not found' — Capsule filters lookups by type. Accepts ownerId and teamId to set ownership at create time; both are optional and Capsule defaults owner to the API-token user when omitted (team has no default).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
typeYes
aboutNo
titleNo
fieldsNoSet custom field values on this record. PARTIAL UPDATE: only the definitions you list are touched; any field NOT in this array is left unchanged. Discover available definitions via list_custom_fields; read current values via get_party with embed='fields'. Verified empirically in v1.6.5 wire-trace: Capsule's POST /parties accepts the same `fields[]` shape as PUT, so callers can set custom field values on creation without a follow-up update.
teamIdNoAssign to team ID (discover via list_teams). Omit to leave team unset on create. To clear an existing team or create a team-owned party with no specific owner, use update_party after creation.
ownerIdNoAssign to user ID. Defaults to the API-token owner when omitted. To create a team-owned party with no specific user, first create the party, then call update_party with `ownerId: null` and `teamId`.
jobTitleNo
lastNameNo
websitesNoAPPEND-ONLY: items are merged into the existing list, never replaced. For atomic add/remove/replace use add_party_website and remove_party_website_by_id.
addressesNoAPPEND-ONLY: items are merged into the existing list, never replaced. For atomic add/remove/replace use add_party_address and remove_party_address_by_id. The `country` field is mapped through Capsule's country dictionary — see `add_party_address.country` for the dictionary edges (small canonical-English-name list; inputs not in the dictionary are REJECTED with 422, not silently dropped).
firstNameNo
phoneNumbersNoAPPEND-ONLY: items are merged into the existing list, never replaced. For atomic add/remove/replace use add_party_phone_number and remove_party_phone_number_by_id.
emailAddressesNoAPPEND-ONLY: items are merged into the existing list, never replaced. For atomic add/remove/replace use add_party_email_address and remove_party_email_address_by_id. Passing `[]` here is a silent no-op (does not clear the list and does not advance updatedAt).
organisationIdNoLink person to an existing organisation ID
trackDefinitionIdsNoTrack definition ids to apply at creation time (creation-only shortcut; use apply_track for existing records). Discover ids via list_track_definitions. Capsule validates each definition's entity scope and returns 422 on mismatch (e.g. "track definition must be for parties"). Wire-verified: the created record carries the track instances immediately.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / emailAddresses / items / properties / address / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / fields / items / properties / value / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / items / properties / value / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / items / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "value"
-]New value: +[
+  "definitionId",
+  "value"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / trackDefinitionIds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Track definition ids to apply at creation time (creation-only shortcut; use apply_track for existing records). Discover ids via list_track_definitions. Capsule validates each definition's entity scope and returns 422 on mismatch (e.g. \"track definition must be for parties\"). Wire-verified: the created record carries the track instances immediately.",
+  "items": {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  4. Addedv1.7.0
  5. Removedv1.6.2
  6. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure—and it does so extensively. It details silent field ignoring, owner defaulting, country dictionary rejection (422), BOOLEAN two-state semantics, NUMBER read-back as strings, audit-log noise on null writes, and append-only merges for nested collections. All of this exceeds what annotations reveal and directly helps an agent predict outcomes.

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 long but each section earns its place; it is front-loaded with the core purpose and type contract, then methodically walks through nested behaviours vice top-level. The structure is readable (bolded parameters, clear sentences) and avoids redundancy. Slightly overpacked for a reviewer, but not bloated for an agent needing exact behaviour.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 16 parameters, no output schema, and multiple hidden caveats (country dictionary, BOOLEAN two-state, append-only merges), the description is remarkably complete. It covers error cases, defaults, side effects, and creation-time shortcuts. The only omissions are minor (e.g., response shape), and the description is sufficient for a competent agent to call the tool correctly in the vast majority of scenarios.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 56%, and while the schema itself documents many parameters, the description adds materially: it explains the type-specific requirements for name vs firstName/lastName, the 404 condition for organisationId, the creation-only nature of trackDefinitionIds, and the append-only semantics for nested arrays. It clearly compensates for the coverage gap and clarifies edge cases that the schema alone would miss.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with the precise action 'Create a new person or organisation in Capsule CRM' and immediately explains the two type-specific contract rules (required name vs firstName/lastName, silently ignored fields). It also flags a non-obvious 404 for organisationId pointing to a non-organisation, which clearly differentiates this from update_party and other party tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives targeted when-to-use vs when-not guidance: it points to atomic add/remove/replace for websites/addresses/phones/emails, notes trackDefinitionIds is a creation-only shortcut vs apply_track, and instructs to use update_party after creation for team-owned parties without an owner. It does not have an explicit 'when not to use' blanket statement, but the context is clear enough.

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