Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Conciergr

by com.conciergr
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Upload saved contact names

upload_contacts
Destructive

Give the Team Inbox the names the business saved on its phone, so each chat shows under that name. Send each person's name, first name and phone numbers as written; numbers are read in the business's own country. Uploading again updates the names; names the team set in the Team Inbox still come first.

Tool call template

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": {
      "people": "<people>"
    },
    "name": "upload_contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandNoWhich assistant (its slug from get_overview `brands[].slug`). Leave out when the business has one.
peopleYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`, so the description's job is to clarify the mutation. It adds valuable behavior: 'Uploading again updates the names' (overwrite semantics) and that manual Team Inbox names take precedence. It doesn't clarify whether contacts omitted from the upload are deleted, which is a consequential gap given the destructive hint.

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?

Three efficient sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by the input expectation and the re-upload precedence rule. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a destructive, nested-input tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, re-upload behavior, and phone interpretation. However, it leaves ambiguous whether contacts not included in an upload are removed (a key risk given `destructiveHint: true`) and never addresses the `brand` parameter or error behavior.

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 description coverage is 50% – `brand` is documented in the schema, but `people` and its nested fields are not. The description compensates partially by explaining that each person's name, first name and phone numbers are sent 'as written' and that numbers are interpreted in the business's own country, but it doesn't clarify field optionality or the `brand` parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Give the Team Inbox the names') and resource ('saved contact names'), and explains the visible outcome that each chat will show under that name. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from manual naming via 'names the team set in the Team Inbox still come first,' though it never names the sibling `set_contact_name_and_note`.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description tells the agent the goal ('so each chat shows under that name') but provides no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The precedence note gives indirect context but not a clear routing rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Conciergr toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources