Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ploomes MCP Server

Ploomes MCP Server

by victorbenazzi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Interaction Record

ploomes_interactions_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single interaction record from Ploomes CRM by ID. Optionally expand related entities such as Contact, Deal, Tags, Comments, NotifiedUsers, or OtherProperties.

Instructions

Get a single interaction record by ID from Ploomes CRM. Use $expand to include related entities like Contact, Deal, Tags, Comments, NotifiedUsers, or OtherProperties.

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": "ploomes_interactions_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesInteraction record ID
expandNoRelated entities to include. Available: Contact, Deal, Tags, Comments, NotifiedUsers, OtherProperties. E.g.: "Contact,Deal,OtherProperties"
selectNoFields to return. E.g.: "Id,Content,Date,DealId,ContactId"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the expand capability but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a concise usage tip. No superfluous information earns its place.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID operation, the description is mostly complete. It mentions expand for related entities, though it does not describe the default return fields. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the expand parameter with examples but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single interaction record by ID, with a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, delete, and update.

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 implies usage when you have a specific interaction ID, and it mentions using $expand for related entities. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, but the context is clear.

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