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

@vitrion/zentria-mcp

Official
by vitrionbv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create-form

Create a sales form linked to a pipeline to collect leads and submit them directly to Zentria CRM.

Instructions

Create a sales form (POST /api/public/sales/forms). 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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "pipelineId": "<pipelineId>"
    },
    "name": "create-form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
canvasJsNo
isActiveNo
canvasCssNo
canvasHtmlNo
pipelineIdYes
leadContractNo
allowedOriginsNo

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 full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method and required auth scope, which is useful. But it does not mention side effects, validation behavior, idempotency, or what happens on success, so behavioral transparency is only partial.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action, resource, endpoint, and required scope. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description only provides the endpoint and scope, leaving the agent without enough information to construct a correct create-form payload.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter semantics at all. Fields like leadContract, allowedOrigins, and the canvas group are left entirely unexplained, so the agent gets no additional meaning beyond the bare property names and types.

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 ('Create') and a specific resource ('sales form'), and also gives the exact POST endpoint. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list-forms, get-form, and update-form.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for creating a sales form, and the sibling names make the create-vs-update distinction obvious. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over update-form or what prerequisites apply beyond the sales:write scope.

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