crm.generate_logoGenerate and save a private logo record for the selected project's business using the supplied brand direction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attributes | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| prompt_style | No | symbolic | |
| business_name | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| selected_colors | 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?
The description adds 'private logo record' and 'save', which implies persistence and scope, going slightly beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, it does not explain the idempotency_key behavior, any irreversible side effects, or what 'private' means in practice. The annotation surface is minimal, so the description carries moderate weight but stays at a basic level.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and result. It avoids redundancy and keeps the key scoping detail ('selected project's business') in focus. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though it may be too brief given the schema's complexity.
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 tool has six parameters with zero schema description coverage, an output schema, and minimal annotations. The description does not clarify how to structure attributes, what prompt_style defaults to or accepts, the role of selected_colors, or how idempotency_key should be used. This leaves an agent under-informed for correct invocation, especially compared to the tool's complexity.
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 for the six parameters. It only gestures at 'brand direction' without explaining that selected_colors, attributes, or prompt_style map to this concept. Business_name, project_id, and idempotency_key receive no contextual explanation. The description does not add enough meaning to help an agent fill the schema correctly.
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 clearly states the action: 'Generate and save a private logo record' for a project's business, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like branding.generate_palette or landing.generate_content. It names the resource (logo record) and the context (selected project's business). It could be slightly stronger by mentioning that the result is an image asset, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'for the selected project's business' implies when the tool is appropriate, and the tool name clarifies it is for logo generation. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like branding.generate_palette or landing.generate_content, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an existing project. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.
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.