angel_get_contactDevuelve las vías de contacto públicas y el siguiente paso recomendado para valorar un proyecto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| metadata | Yes |
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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which already cover the safety profile. The description adds context about what is returned (public contact channels and a recommended next step), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data source or limitations. This is adequate given the annotations.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and result. It is concise with no redundant words or information.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states the purpose and result. No invocation-critical information is missing.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details.
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 states a specific verb ('Devuelve') and a specific resource ('vías de contacto públicas' and 'siguiente paso recomendado'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which cover methodology, profile, service, cases, recommendations, and search.
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 phrase 'para valorar un proyecto' provides an implied usage context, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the public consulting domain: contact, methodology, profile, individual service details, case list, service recommendation, and cross-cutting search. The overlap between search and get_service is minimal because search returns matches with canonical URLs while get_service provides the full approved description of a specific service.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: the prefix 'angel_' plus a clear verb ('get', 'list', 'recommend', 'search') followed by the target noun. This uniform verb_noun convention makes the tool set highly predictable and easy to navigate.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a consulting information and recommendation service. Each tool earns its place, covering both direct lookups (contact, profile, service, methodology) and discovery/guidance (list cases, recommend, search).
The domain of public consulting information is well covered: profile, methodology, services, cases, contact, and search are all present. A minor gap is the absence of a dedicated 'list_services' tool—an agent must rely on search or recommendation to discover available services—but this is not a fatal omission given the search capability.