get_contact
Every way to reach API Evangelist — email, contact form, newsletter, GitHub, social channels, and postal mail.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
api-evangelist
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether the result is static, cached, or requires authentication. For a zero-parameter tool, more context on the nature of the output would help.
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?
Single sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently. Front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description is adequate for a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, but it doesn't specify the format of the returned contact methods (e.g., list of strings). Slightly more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, baseline score of 4 as per instructions. Schema coverage is 100%, so no additional parameter meaning is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns contact methods for API Evangelist, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('contact'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_area, get_tag) by focusing on contact info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_api_evangelist. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, reducing ambiguity. However, some overlap exists between search tools like 'find_posts' and 'search_api_evangelist', though they target different scopes (stories vs. unified search). Overall, an agent can reasonably differentiate them.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., find_areas, get_post), but several use noun_noun or inconsistent prefixes (e.g., api_coverage, company_gaps, insights_adoption). This inconsistency can confuse pattern recognition, though the pattern is still readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 56 tools, the server is overloaded for a typical MCP context. While the domain is broad, the sheer number risks agent confusion and selection errors. Calibration suggests 25+ tools are excessive, and this server far exceeds that threshold.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of API governance, search, analysis, and generation tasks. There are no obvious dead ends for navigating the API Evangelist network, though some areas (e.g., direct API creation) are intentionally out of scope. Minor consolidation could improve efficiency.