Skip to main content
Glama

DirectIQ

directiq_add_contact_to_list

Idempotent

Add an existing contact (by contact ID) to a list. Adding a contact that is already on the list has no effect. To add someone by email who may not exist yet, use directiq_upsert_contact.

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": {
      "listId": "<listId>",
      "contactId": "<contactId>"
    },
    "name": "directiq_add_contact_to_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listIdYesNumeric list ID (from directiq_list_lists)
contactIdYesNumeric contact ID (from directiq_list_contacts or directiq_get_contact)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotation set already declares idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Adding a contact that is already on the list has no effect.' That consistency is valuable, but it doesn't cover failure behavior (nonexistent contact or list ID) or what the response contains.

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 short sentences: capability first, the duplicate no-op second, the alternative route last. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive mutation with fully documented schema and annotations, the description covers nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The only gap is behavior on invalid contact/list IDs, which is not addressed anywhere.

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 100% and both parameters document their source endpoints, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only hints at the ID-based nature of contactId; it adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb + resource ('Add an existing contact ... to a list') with the ID-based semantics stated explicitly. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like directiq_upsert_contact and directiq_remove_contact_from_list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the precondition (contact must already exist, identified by contact ID) and names the alternative for the other case: 'To add someone by email who may not exist yet, use directiq_upsert_contact.' It also states the no-op behavior for duplicates, so the agent knows when calling it is harmless.

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.