Skip to main content
Glama

FavCRM

by io.favcrm

create_segment

Create a new customer segment. Use STATIC for manual member lists, DYNAMIC for criteria-based auto-filtering.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSegment name
criteriaNoDynamic segment criteria
descriptionNoSegment description
segmentTypeNoSegment type (default DYNAMIC)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesTool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
summaryYesOne-line human-readable summary of the action
renderTypeYesUI rendering hint for the result

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / properties / days / description
      Previous value: -"Days for time-based conditions"New value: +"Days window for time-based conditions"
    • addedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / properties / definitionId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Custom field definition ID for custom-field segment conditions",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / properties / fieldName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Custom field name for custom-field segment conditions",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / properties / fieldType
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Custom field type for custom-field segment conditions",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / properties / operator / description
      Previous value: -"Comparison operator"New value: +"Comparison operator, e.g. GT, GTE, LT, LTE, EQ, NEQ, IN, NOT_IN, CONTAINS, BEFORE, AFTER, IS_EMPTY"
    • changedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / properties / threshold / description
      Previous value: -"Threshold value"New value: +"Numeric threshold for numeric conditions"
    • changedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Condition type"New value: +"Condition type, e.g. TOTAL_SPENDINGS, DAYS_SINCE_JOINED, PASS_STATUS, CUSTOM_FIELD"
    • addedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / properties / value
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Single value for text/date/selection/custom-field conditions"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / properties / values
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Multiple values for IN/NOT_IN conditions",
+  "items": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties / conditions / items / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "type",
-  "operator",
-  "threshold"
-]New value: +[
+  "type",
+  "operator"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / segmentType / description
      Previous value: -"Segment type (default STATIC)"New value: +"Segment type (default DYNAMIC)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint false), and the description adds the static/dynamic distinction. It doesn't disclose downstream requirements like populating static segment members via set_segment_members, but the description adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the action, the second explains the key type decision. No wasted words or filler content.

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?

The output schema exists and annotations clarify it's a write operation. The description is minimal but the schema covers the complex criteria structure. It could mention that STATIC segments require later member assignment via set_segment_members, but this is not a critical omission for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds meaning to segmentType by explaining that STATIC is for manual member lists and DYNAMIC is for criteria-based auto-filtering, which goes beyond the schema's simple enum label.

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 'Create a new customer segment' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the two segment types (STATIC vs DYNAMIC), which helps differentiate it from sibling segment-related tools like set_segment_members or preview_segment_count.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use STATIC vs DYNAMIC segment types, which is useful for parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_segment or set_segment_members, though the tool name and siblings make this somewhat implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All FavCRM toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping boundaries, such as generate_post_cover/attach_post_cover_from_job/upload_post_cover_from_url, update_deal/update_deal_stage/mark_deal_won/mark_deal_lost, and booking status transitions (confirm/cancel/complete/mark_no_show). The catch-all execute_tool adds further ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case convention (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*, delete_*, restore_*). Minor exceptions like 'clone' and 'execute_tool' are still readable and do not significantly break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 223 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped. Even for a full CRM platform, this many tools overwhelms context windows and makes tool selection impractical. It far exceeds the reasonable range for an MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The surface is broad but has notable gaps: no update_booking/delete_booking, no delete_product, no send_message/send_campaign (referenced but absent), and no delete_staff/resource. Some workflows dead-end or require manual approval steps.

Resources