Busca um contato pelo ID.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "contato_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Busca" implies a read operation, but nothing states what happens when the ID does not exist (error vs. null), whether authentication or permissions are required, or whether the lookup is scoped to the caller's workspace.
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?
One short sentence with the key qualifier ("pelo ID") front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than true concision.
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 is simple (one required UUID parameter, no nested objects), but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say what a successful response contains and how a missing contact is signaled. Neither is covered, leaving the agent guessing about return values and failure modes.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter, id, has no description beyond its UUID format. The phrase "pelo ID" confirms the ID identifies a contact, but that only restates the parameter name and adds no format, source, or discovery guidance (e.g., where to obtain such an ID).
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?
"Busca um contato pelo ID" names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (contato) plus the lookup key, so intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling contato_list, but "pelo ID" (single record) implicitly separates it from a listing operation.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor any mention of contato_list as the alternative for browsing contacts. An agent must infer from the sibling name alone that this tool is for retrieving one known ID rather than enumerating contacts.
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.