LobbyStack

Get a contact

get_contact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns one contact by id.

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contact_id`	Yes	The contact id (UUID).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Stable identifier (UUID).
`name`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`phone`	Yes
`locale`	Yes
`passcode`	Yes	The contact's keypad PIN, which callers type to change appointments when verification_mode is passcode_required: whether there is one, never the PIN itself. null: the contact has no PIN.
`timezone`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp in UTC.
`updated_at`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp in UTC.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that—no statement about behavior when the id does not exist, no auth or scope notes, and no mention of what is included in the returned contact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the lookup key is stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal structure.

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?

The tool is simple: one fully documented parameter, an output schema that covers return values, and annotations that cover safety. Given that support, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits not-found/error behavior and any note about which fields the contact record includes.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with a UUID format and pattern already documented in the schema. The description's "by id" merely echoes the parameter, adding no new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns one contact") plus the lookup key ("by id"), which tells an agent this is a single-record fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with search_contacts or list-style siblings, but the singular "one contact by id" makes the distinction largely inferable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over search_contacts when only an id is known, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the required contact_id parameter.

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

All LobbyStack tools Inspect

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

Need Help?