get_contact_optionsReturn public contact options without sending a message, booking a meeting, or collecting personal data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| markdown | Yes | ||
| canonicalUrl | Yes | ||
| lastReviewed | Yes | ||
| contentStatus | Yes | ||
| profileVersion | Yes | ||
| draftPreparedAt | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds transparency by stating that no message is sent, no meeting is booked, and no personal data is collected, which aligns and complements the annotations. This adds value beyond the structured data, hence a 4.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and zero-waste. It clearly conveys the purpose and key non-actions in one line, which is ideal for agent consumption.
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 tool is simple with zero parameters, and the output schema exists, so return values are likely documented structurally. The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (non-intrusive read operation). It could potentially note that results are public-only, but the description is adequate for this low-complexity tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since no parameters exist). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the tool's behavior. Given no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate per the rubric, and the description adds sufficient context.
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 clearly states the tool 'returns public contact options' without sending a message or collecting personal data, which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying the non-intrusive nature, though it could be more explicit about what 'contact options' includes (e.g., email, phone numbers).
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 description implies when to use this tool by emphasizing it does not send messages or book meetings, distinguishing it from action-oriented tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state scenarios where siblings like get_site_guide might be more appropriate, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
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.
The two assess_* tools are clearly the same kind of operation (returning an instruction bundle) with only the target differing, which could lead to mild confusion, but the descriptions specify the exact audience (recruiter vs. founder). The three get_* tools are cleanly separated by resource type (contact, services, guide). A non-expert might briefly hesitate between the assess tools, but the overall surface is mostly unambiguous.
All tools follow a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern: assess_* for the two evaluation bundles and get_* for the three informational endpoints. The consistency makes it immediately predictable what a future tool, such as 'assess_partnership_fit' or 'get_about', would be called. There are no stylistic deviations.
Five tools is a well-scoped count for a professional-site-oriented MCP server, comfortably within the ideal 3–15 range. Every tool has a distinct purpose and earns its place on the surface. The count appropriately matches the small-brochure-site scope.
For the stated purpose of a professional site landing zone, the surface covers the core lifecycle: discover services and guide, get contact, and run the two main fit assessments. A minor gap exists in that there is no explicit tool for browsing site content such as a blog, testimonials, or case studies, and the two assess tools overlap slightly in what they return. Still, an agent could easily accomplish the main workflows end-to-end.