Skip to main content
Glama

get_contact

Read-only

Return one contact's full profile plus every contact-variable value stored for them. Read-only. Values may hold personal data; variables of type SECRET are always redacted. Call list_contacts first to find the contactId.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contactIdYesRequired. Contact id, as returned by list_contacts or send_message.
applicationIdNoApplication (workspace) id. Optional: an application-scoped key (app_...) defaults to its own application, but a personal key (usr_...) has no default and omitting it fails with MCP_APPLICATION_REQUIRED. Call list_applications to get the id.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Read-only is already in annotations, but description adds meaningful behavior: contact-variable values may contain personal data, and SECRET-type variables are always redacted. Also explains the return scope (full profile plus every contact-variable value), which is valuable given no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: return scope, read-only safety, redaction caution, and prerequisite step. No fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, description compensates by stating the return contents and redaction behavior. It also gives the prerequisite call. However, it doesn't detail profile fields or error cases, but with schema covering parameters and annotations marking read-only, it is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage of both parameters, so baseline is 3. Description provides a practical pointer to list_contacts for contactId but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Return' and specifies resource: one contact's full profile plus every contact-variable value. This distinguishes from sibling list_contacts (multiple contacts) and create/update_contact.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to call list_contacts first to find contactId, giving clear prerequisite and usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond list_contacts, so not a 5.

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each get_/list_ tool targets a distinct resource and the descriptions carefully separate similar pairs like get_application_context vs get_workspace_summary and get_broadcast_details vs get_broadcast_analytics. The main ambiguity is apply_actions vs validate_actions, since one runs the other's validation, but the descriptions make that relationship explicit.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently follow verb_object snake_case and use familiar verbs like create, get, list, and update. Minor deviations such as read_messages instead of list_messages, apply_actions/validate_actions with plural nouns, and run_flow_autotest are still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the 25-tool threshold and makes the surface feel heavy, even though the domain is broad. Many of the read-only getters are individually useful but could be consolidated, such as merging module catalog/details or workspace/application context.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: application lifecycle, flow editing through apply_actions, deployment, contacts, broadcasts, modules, and message/event reads. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated delete for contacts, applications, or broadcasts, and no rollback for deployments, but agents can work around or avoid these.