savi-tools

Contact history

get_contact_history

Read-only

Search the subscriber’s own contacts by name, company, industry, or profession. Returns each match with phone/mobile/email, title, company, industry, tags, and relationship history. Answers "I am about to call the Chens, what is our history?" and "list my real-estate contacts with their phone numbers." Contacts flagged doNotShare asked not to be passed along.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Name or company to search for.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it returns specific fields (phone, email, etc.) and notes that flagged contacts are not passed along. This provides useful behavioral details beyond annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with an example, no wasted words, and front-loads the action and key searchable fields. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool is a simple read-only search with one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: what to search, what is returned, and a behavioral note about sharing. Adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'query' parameter. The description adds meaning by listing the types of searches (name, company, industry, profession) and the returned fields, enriching the parameter's semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches the subscriber's own contacts by multiple criteria (name, company, industry, profession) and lists returned fields. The sibling tools are all financial summaries, making this contact search distinct. Examples of questions it answers further clarify purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit search criteria and return fields, with examples. It also mentions a behavioral condition about contacts flagged 'doNotShare'. While it doesn't state when not to use or name alternatives, the context from siblings is sufficient.

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

All savi-tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a specific financial, client, project, or tax aspect with clear, distinct descriptions. Overlaps like get_cost_summary vs get_expense_summary are resolved by explicit scope differences (costs include mileage and bills; expenses are line-item). No two tools serve the same purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 25 tools follow a strict `verb_noun` pattern: `get_` for detailed summaries and `list_` for enumerations. No mixed conventions (camelCase, abbreviations) are present, making the pattern predictable for an agent.

Tool Count4/5

At 25 tools, the set is on the larger side but fully justified by the breadth of the domain (financial summaries, clients, projects, taxes, contacts, time, mileage). Each tool covers a distinct slice; minor redundancies (e.g., cost vs expense summary) are acceptable due to nuanced differences.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers essential business operations: revenue, costs, expenses, cash, invoices, bills, projects, clients, contacts, taxes, time, mileage, and goals. Notably missing are any mutation tools (create/update), but the server appears intentionally read-only (analytics/reporting). For that purpose, the coverage is strong.

Resources

Need Help?