Skip to main content
Glama

Mob (Demo)

by io.github.benkaiser

address_manage

Add, update, or remove an address for a contact

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe address ID (required for "update" and "remove")
cityNoCity
labelNoLabel (e.g. "Home", "Work")
actionYesAction to perform
countryNoCountry (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 recommended)
contact_idNoThe contact ID (required for "add")
is_primaryNoSet as primary address
postal_codeNoPostal/ZIP code
street_line_1NoStreet address line 1
street_line_2NoStreet address line 2
state_provinceNoState or province

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects such as primary address handling, whether removal cascades, or whether specific fields are required for each action. It only lists the three actions without behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's three functions. It is minimal and free of unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is an 11-parameter tool with three distinct actions and no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description does not explain action-specific requirements, such as which parameters apply to which action, nor does it describe the outcome or side effects. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description lacks operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies; it merely names the actions at a high level.

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 specific verbs 'Add, update, or remove' and identifies the resource 'address for a contact', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like contact_method_manage. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions for each action. It merely states what the tool does, providing only implied usage based on the user's need.

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

All Mob (Demo) 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct by entity, but contact_get and contact_timeline overlap significantly, and debt_manage's action='list' duplicates what other entities do with a dedicated list tool. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity, though.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and readable, but they mix conventions: noun_verb (contact_create), verb_noun (batch_create_activities), and descriptive phrases (contacts_needing_attention). The noun_manage pattern is dominant, but the lack of uniformity makes the naming less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the surface is very large, even for a full-featured CRM. Many tools bundle multiple actions, but the sheer number forces an agent to consider many options, increasing selection difficulty and cognitive load.

Completeness5/5

The server provides comprehensive CRM coverage: contacts, activities, notes, tasks, reminders, gifts, debts, relationships, tags, custom fields, notifications, settings, and exports. It supports batch operations, duplicate detection, merge, and special queries, leaving few if any obvious gaps.

Resources