submit_contact_requestSubmits a prospect contact request — first name, last name, email, and organization — to SMI so the sales team can follow up. For prospects who do not yet have an SMI Aware token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Prospect email address; our team will reach out here. | ||
| lastName | Yes | Prospect last name. | |
| firstName | Yes | Prospect first name. | |
| organization | Yes | Prospect's organization name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds the prerequisite about no existing SMI token and the follow-up behavior, but does not disclose side effects such as duplicate submissions or what response to expect. With annotations covering the core behavioral profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the qualifying condition. Every word earns its place; no repetition or filler.
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?
For a simple four-parameter submission tool, the description covers what, why, and when. It lacks information about the response or error conditions, but with no output schema and straightforward fields, the definition is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description merely lists the four fields without adding format, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.
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 uses a specific verb ('Submits'), names the resource ('prospect contact request'), identifies the recipient ('to SMI'), and explains the purpose ('so the sales team can follow up'). It also gives the key fields involved and the target audience, making it easily distinguishable from the many smi_* subject/export/report siblings.
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 explicitly conditions usage on 'prospects who do not yet have an SMI Aware token,' which is a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not name an alternative tool or say what to use if the prospect already has a token, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
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.