Every way to reach API Evangelist — email, contact form, newsletter, GitHub, social channels, and postal mail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the set of contact channels returned, which is modest extra value, but says nothing about how results are shaped or any constraints. A 3 is appropriate with annotations carrying the load.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is a fragment rather than a full statement of purpose, which slightly limits clarity, but it is efficiently sized.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of the returned channels usefully compensates by telling the agent what to expect back. For a simple read-only contact lookup this is essentially complete, though it omits any return-format or freshness detail.
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 100% and the single 'context' parameter is documented in detail in the schema. The description adds nothing about how to use the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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 makes clear this returns every channel for reaching API Evangelist, and it enumerates those channels (email, contact form, newsletter, GitHub, social, postal mail). It is written as a noun phrase describing the return content rather than stating an explicit verb, but combined with the name get_contact an agent can tell what it does. It does not distinguish itself against any sibling.
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 guidance, no conditions, and no pointer to alternatives. Related siblings such as submit_api_evangelist_feedback or search_api_evangelist are not mentioned, so the agent must infer that this is the contact-info lookup.
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.