Skip to main content
Glama

Mob (Demo)

by io.github.benkaiser

contact_create

Create a new contact with basic info

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
genderNoGender
statusNoContact status (default: active)
companyNoCompany or organization
industryNoIndustry
nicknameNoNickname
pronounsNoPronouns (e.g. she/her, he/him, they/them)
job_titleNoJob title
last_nameNoLast name
avatar_urlNoAvatar URL
first_nameYesFirst name (required)
work_notesNoNotes about their work
is_favoriteNoMark as favorite
maiden_nameNoMaiden name
met_at_dateNoDate you met this person (YYYY-MM-DD)
middle_nameNoMiddle name
birthday_dayNoBirthday day (1-31), used with birthday_mode=month_day
birthday_dateNoFull birthday date (YYYY-MM-DD), used with birthday_mode=full_date
birthday_modeNoBirthday mode: full_date (YYYY-MM-DD), month_day (month + day only), or approximate_age (birth year estimate)
deceased_dateNoDate of death (YYYY-MM-DD)
birthday_monthNoBirthday month (1-12), used with birthday_mode=month_day
met_at_locationNoWhere you met this person
met_descriptionNoStory of how you met
met_through_contact_idNoContact ID of person who introduced you
birthday_year_approximateNoApproximate birth year, used with birthday_mode=approximate_age

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / middle_name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Middle name",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new contact,' implying mutation, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, but the phrase 'with basic info' is vague and could be removed. It lacks structure, such as stating the required parameter or pointing to related tools, making it minimally sufficient.

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?

For a tool with 24 parameters and no annotations or output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not mention that it creates a single contact, the required first_name field, or any related batch alternatives. The description offers almost no contextual value beyond the name.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—'basic info' does not clarify any specific parameters or provide guidance on required fields (only first_name is required).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('contact'), which clearly identifies the tool's core function. However, the qualifier 'with basic info' is vague and potentially misleading given the schema includes 24 fields, many of which (e.g., deceased_date, birthday_mode) are not 'basic'.

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 such as batch_create_contacts or contact_update. It does not mention single-contact scope, nor does it exclude bulk operations or direct users to sibling tools.

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