merge_peopleMerge duplicate CRM contacts into a primary person. ($0.10; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | No | Client idempotency key (retries return original result). | |
| idempotency_key | No | Alias for request_id. | |
| primary_person_id | Yes | ||
| duplicate_person_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person | No | CRM person record. | |
| message | No | ||
| merged_person_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idempotency_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias for request_id.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Client idempotency key (retries return original result).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, and the description adds practical context: '$0.10; API key required' states cost and auth requirements. 'Merge ... into a primary person' also conveys that duplicate records are consolidated into one surviving record, though it does not spell out irreversibility or field-precedence behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence states the core action, followed by a compact parenthetical for cost and auth. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 description is adequate for a destructive merge with an existing output schema and annotations, but it omits when-not-to-use guidance and any detail about what happens to linked data or fields during the merge. These gaps leave an agent to infer important side effects beyond 'merge into primary.'
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 50%, and the description names 'primary person' and 'duplicate CRM contacts,' which maps to primary_person_id and duplicate_person_ids. The idempotency parameters are already described in the schema, but the description adds little beyond what the parameter names imply for the required IDs.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Merge duplicate CRM contacts into a primary person.' This clearly identifies a consolidation action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like link_people or create_person.
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 'duplicate CRM contacts' gives clear context for when the tool applies, and the merge-into-primary wording implies consolidation rather than linking. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative such as link_people or score_people_duplicates.
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.