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

@vitrion/zentria-mcp

Official
by vitrionbv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create-activity

Create a sales activity in Zentria CRM to log calls, meetings, or tasks with title, type, due date, and linked deal or person. Use it to record follow-ups and assign responsibilities.

Instructions

Create a sales activity (POST /api/public/sales/activities). Scope: sales: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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create-activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
typeYesActivity type (call, meeting, task, etc.).
dueAtNoISO datetime.
titleYesActivity title.
dealIdNo
personIdNo
assigneeUserIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a POST/write operation and states the required scope 'sales:write', which adds useful context. However, it omits side effects, response behavior, validation rules, or reversibility.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, resource, endpoint, and auth scope in two clauses. Every element earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters, this description is too lean. It leaves the agent without clarity on return values, required field interplay, or common invocation expectations, so the agent must rely heavily on schema inference.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 43%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the resource context. It does not mention required fields, optional associations, or the purpose of parameters like body, dealId, personId, or assigneeUserId.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Create'), a distinct resource ('sales activity'), and the exact endpoint. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like create-todo, create-note, and list-activities.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-activities, update-activity, or other create-* tools. The endpoint and scope are useful, but the agent is left to infer usage context.

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