Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@vitrion/zentria-mcp

@vitrion/zentria-mcp

Official
by vitrionbv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

archive-customer

Destructive

Archive a customer in Zentria CRM to mark it as inactive while retaining its data. Use when a customer should no longer be actively managed.

Instructions

Archive a customer (PATCH /api/public/customers/{id}/archive). Scope: customers:write.

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": "archive-customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCustomer id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already communicates destructive behavior. The description adds the HTTP method and the required 'customers:write' scope, which is useful context, but it does not explain side effects such as reversibility or impact on associated data.

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 one short sentence that leads with the primary action and includes the endpoint and permission scope. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter destructive action with a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It could add a note about what archiving does to the customer, but the current definition gives enough to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description provides no additional semantic information beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') and a clear resource ('customer'), and further disambiguates with the exact HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes archive from update or delete operations among the sibling tools.

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 is given about when archiving is appropriate versus alternatives like updating or deleting a customer. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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