OrgLines

People: Merge two cards of one person

merge_contacts_personal

Destructive

Merge two cards of the SAME person in the caller's OWN contact book: 'merge_id' is absorbed into 'keep_id' and disappears. Phones, e-mails, aliases and tags are united, empty fields filled, the timeline, links and reminders move to keep_id, the merged name becomes an alias, a different job / how-met / note is kept in the note. keep_id's birthday wins (birthday_conflict tells if the other differed); exactly one birthday reminder remains. Ask the person which card to keep first. CONFIRMATION: this tool is PROPOSED, never performed directly. You get status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and a plan_token, and the write happens only after confirm_action.

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": {
      "keep_id": "<keep_id>",
      "merge_id": "<merge_id>"
    },
    "name": "merge_contacts_personal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keep_id`	Yes
`merge_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description explains exactly what happens: merge_id is absorbed, fields are united, timeline/links/reminders move, the merged name becomes an alias, birthday precedence is defined, and one birthday reminder remains. It also discloses the confirmation-gated workflow with status='confirmation_required', action_id, and plan_token.

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?

The description is dense and front-loads the operation and scope before the merge rules and confirmation workflow. It is appropriately sized for a destructive merge with no output schema, though the long middle sentence could be easier to scan if split or bulleted.

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?

It covers the merge semantics, conflict handling, reminder behavior, user confirmation guidance, and the confirmation-required response workflow. With no output schema and only two required parameters, this gives an agent enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the semantic roles of the two parameters: merge_id is absorbed into keep_id and disappears, while keep_id wins on birthday conflicts. This meaning goes well beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: merge two cards of the SAME person in the caller's OWN contact book. It also defines which card disappears and which is kept, making the operation distinguishable from generic contact updates or people merges.

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?

It gives clear preconditions: the cards must belong to the same person and be in the caller's own contact book, and the caller should first ask which card to keep. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as hr_merge_people, but the personal-contact scope is clear.

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

All OrgLines 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?