Uso de storage deste CRM: bytes do banco + bytes de arquivos, total em GB, nº de arquivos e egress acumulado. É a base do que é cobrado (storage GB-mês + egress).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds concrete details on the returned data (bytes, GB, file count, egress) and its role in billing, offering value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 written sentence that covers the tool's purpose and key outputs. It avoids unnecessary fluff, front-loads the primary function (storage usage), and efficiently conveys billing relevance. Every clause contributes value.
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 no output schema, so the description is the only source for return details. It lists the main metrics but lacks specifics on types, units, or structure (e.g., whether it returns JSON, exact field names). Given low complexity (1 param, no nested objects), the description is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for precise invocation, especially regarding the 'account' parameter.
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?
With only one parameter 'account' and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what 'account' refers to (e.g., account identifier). It does not mention the parameter at all, relying on the schema's type-only definition. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent guessing about expected input.
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 it retrieves storage usage (database bytes, file bytes, total GB, file count, accumulated egress), and explicitly ties it to billing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_list_files or crm_get_records, which focus on individual items rather than aggregate usage metrics.
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 use for checking storage consumption and billing basis, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like crm_list_files or crm_get_object. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from context.
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.
The CRM tools are mostly distinct (CRUD, file operations, schema management), but there is potential confusion between crm_describe, crm_get_object, and crm_list_objects, and between crm_upload_file/crm_upload_from_url/crm_confirm_upload. However, descriptions clarify these somewhat. The set also includes auxiliary tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) that are clearly separate.
Most tools follow the crm_verb_noun pattern (crm_create_records, crm_delete_records, crm_update_records, etc.). Some deviations like authenticate, connect, toolkit_info, and show_version lack the crm_ prefix, and bulk support is noted in descriptions but not in names. Still, the convention is fairly consistent.
With 36 tools, the count is on the heavier side. The CRM-specific tools (about 27) cover CRUD, schema, relationships, files, and usage, which is reasonable for a full CRM API. However, the inclusion of platform-level tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) adds breadth that goes beyond CRM-specific functionality, making the set feel larger than necessary.
The tool surface is quite complete: full CRUD for records, objects, fields, files, relationships, search, and usage. The descriptions mention validations and bulk support, and the crm_describe tool prompts agents to understand schema first. Gaps are minimal—for instance, no explicit bulk delete for records but crm_delete_records supports bulk via ids. Overall, the domain is well-covered.