crm.add_contact_noteAppend to or replace the private notes stored for a CRM contact in the selected project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| append | No | ||
| person_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| confirmation_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful context by clarifying exactly what can be destroyed: existing private notes that may be replaced. It also discloses that operations are scoped to a selected project. This aligns with annotations and adds meaningful behavioral nuance without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action ('Append to or replace') and the affected resource. There is no filler, repetition, or low-value detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The required parameters map reasonably to the description, and the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, the description omits important operational details for a destructive tool, such as how confirmation_token works, how replacement should be triggered, and any project-scoping constraints. An agent following only these words would have an incomplete model of the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It helps explain person_id, project_id, note, and append, but it says nothing about idempotency_key or confirmation_token, which are meaningful for a destructive write operation. With six parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb phrase ('Append to or replace'), a precise resource ('the private notes stored for a CRM contact'), and a scope ('in the selected project'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling crm.add_lead_note because it targets contact notes, not lead notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: modifying private notes for a CRM contact. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives like crm.add_lead_note or crm.update_contact, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The intended context is clear but left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.