create_opportunity
Create a new opportunity/deal
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| stageId | Yes | ||
| contactId | No | ||
| pipelineId | Yes | ||
| monetaryValue | No |
0nMCP — Universal AI API Orchestrator
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Create', which is already in the tool name, and does not mention side effects, required fields, or potential errors. The agent gets no information about mutation, permissions, or reversibility beyond what is obvious from the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no excess wording, which is positive for conciseness. However, it is under-specified for a create tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. It is appropriately short but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides zero contextual detail. It does not mention typical use cases, behavior, or what constitutes success. This is extremely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially without parameter guidance.
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 adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema lists parameter names but no descriptions, and the description does not explain required fields (name, pipelineId, stageId) or the meaning of monetaryValue. The agent is left with only parameter names to infer semantics, which is a significant gap.
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 the action 'Create' and the resource 'opportunity/deal', which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like search_opportunities or create_contact. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create an opportunity instead of a contact), nor any prerequisites or context. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between create tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct actions (create/get/update/search for contacts, opportunities, etc.). However, send_email overlaps with send_message which explicitly supports email, and verify_service is an outlier unrelated to the CRM-focused tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_contact, get_pipelines, send_message). The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire set.
Tool Count3/5
17 tools is at the heavy end for a CRM-focused server, and the 'Universal AI API Orchestrator' name suggests broader capabilities than the actual tool set. The count is not extreme but feels slightly over-scoped for what is offered.
Completeness3/5
Contact and opportunity management cover create/read/update/search with additional note/tag features, but there are no delete operations for contacts or opportunities, and appointment creation is missing. The verify_service tool adds an unrelated capability, leaving some CRM lifecycle gaps.