datacrazy_leads_attachments_create
Anexar arquivo ao lead (POST /api/v1/leads/{leadId}/attachments). [write, altera dados]
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| leadId | Yes | ||
| account | No |
DataCrazy
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description repeats the write nature but doesn't detail side effects, required data format, or response behavior, relying solely on annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, one sentence with endpoint info, no fluff.
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?
Missing critical details such as the expected format of the body (e.g., file upload, base64), any authentication requirements, and what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameter descriptions are provided; leadId, body, and account are unexplained, leaving users to guess their roles.
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 clearly states 'Attach file to lead' (Anexar arquivo ao lead) and provides the HTTP POST endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from list/delete attachment tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others, but the action is clear; it could benefit from mentioning that it is for creating new attachments, not updating or deleting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., leads_create vs businesses_create). Even nested tools like leads_activities_list are clearly scoped from general activities_list. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency5/5
All resource tools follow the exact pattern 'datacrazy_<resource>_<action>' with actions being create, get, list, patch, update, delete, plus a few composite verbs like finish_create or actions_win_create. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count2/5
70 tools is far beyond the usual 3-15 range for an MCP server, making it overwhelming and unwieldy for agents. Although the scope is broad (full CRM), the sheer count exceeds the recommended threshold for effective tool discovery.
Completeness4/5
Most resources have full CRUD coverage (leads, activities, tags, lists, products, businesses, business_loss_reasons). Some gaps exist: attendants only have get/list, conversations lack delete/update, and pipelines are read-only. These are minor and workable, but not complete lifetime coverage.