Skip to main content
Glama

FavCRM

by io.favcrm

update_segment

Idempotent

Update an existing customer segment by id. Pass only the fields to change; criteria replaces the existing rules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew segment name
criteriaNoReplace dynamic criteria, or null to clear criteria
segmentIdYesThe segment ID to update
descriptionNoNew segment description
segmentTypeNoChange segment type

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. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / criteria / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "conditions": {
+        "description": "Filter conditions",
+        "items": {
+          "properties": {
+            "days": {
+              "description": "Days window for time-based conditions",
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "definitionId": {
+              "description": "Custom field definition ID for custom-field segment conditions",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "fieldName": {
+              "description": "Custom field name for custom-field segment conditions",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "fieldType": {
+              "description": "Custom field type for custom-field segment conditions",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "operator": {
+              "description": "Comparison operator, e.g. GT, GTE, LT, LTE, EQ, NEQ, IN, NOT_IN, CONTAINS, BEFORE, AFTER, IS_EMPTY",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "threshold": {
+              "description": "Numeric threshold for numeric conditions",
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "type": {
+              "description": "Condition type, e.g. TOTAL_SPENDINGS, DAYS_SINCE_JOINED, PASS_STATUS, CUSTOM_FIELD",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "value": {
+              "anyOf": [
+                {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                {
+                  "type": "number"
+                },
+                {
+                  "type": "boolean"
+                },
+                {
+                  "type": "null"
+                }
+              ],
+              "description": "Single value for text/date/selection/custom-field conditions"
+            },
+            "values": {
+              "description": "Multiple values for IN/NOT_IN conditions",
+              "items": {
+                "anyOf": [
+                  {
+                    "type": "string"
+                  },
+                  {
+                    "type": "number"
+                  },
+                  {
+                    "type": "boolean"
+                  }
+                ]
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "type",
+            "operator"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "operator": {
+        "description": "How to combine conditions",
+        "enum": [
+          "AND",
+          "OR"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "operator",
+      "conditions"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / criteria / description
      Previous value: -"Replace the dynamic segment criteria"New value: +"Replace dynamic criteria, or null to clear criteria"
    • removedInput schema / properties / criteria / properties
      Removed value: -{
-  "conditions": {
-    "description": "Filter conditions",
-    "items": {
-      "properties": {
-        "days": {
-          "description": "Days for time-based conditions",
-          "type": "number"
-        },
-        "operator": {
-          "description": "Comparison operator",
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "threshold": {
-          "description": "Threshold value",
-          "type": "number"
-        },
-        "type": {
-          "description": "Condition type",
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      },
-      "required": [
-        "type",
-        "operator",
-        "threshold"
-      ],
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  "operator": {
-    "description": "How to combine conditions",
-    "enum": [
-      "AND",
-      "OR"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / criteria / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "operator",
-  "conditions"
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / criteria / type
      Removed value: -"object"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a partial update ('Pass only the fields to change') and that criteria overwrites existing rules ('criteria replaces the existing rules'). This goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences (18 words), front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by two crucial hints. There is no filler, redundant schema repetition, or ambiguity. Every word 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with a complex criteria object, the description plus full schema coverage provides enough information to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the partial-update semantics and criteria replacement, leaving no major gaps. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter docs, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the overall update pattern (only specified fields change) and highlighting the criteria replacement behavior, which complements the schema's per-field descriptions and helps the AI understand how to construct a valid request.

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 'Update an existing customer segment by id' – a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('customer segment') with a unique identifier, clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/get segment siblings. It also specifies the partial-update behavior ('Pass only the fields to change'), reinforcing the exact operation.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: any time you need to modify an existing segment. It states the partial-update pattern ('Pass only the fields to change') and highlights the critical replacement semantics for criteria, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., set_segment_members) or exclusions. Still, the usage intent is unambiguous.

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