get_contact_infoOffice address, phone and email. Use when the person wants to reach YesTechie themselves. (REST: GET /api/agent/v0/contact-info)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_contact_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The 'REST: GET' note usefully signals a read-only, side-effect-free call, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens if contact info is unavailable. For a simple zero-parameter read 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?
The description is two short sentences with the key information front-loaded. The parenthetical REST endpoint is secondary but useful for agents that reason about API surfaces; overall there is little waste.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: it states the returned fields and the usage condition. A little more on availability or fallback behavior would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because none is needed, and nothing is misleading.
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 names the exact resource returned (office address, phone, email) and implies retrieval, which is more specific than the title 'Contact info'. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling submit_contact, though the phrase 'reach YesTechie themselves' gently hints at the distinction.
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?
It provides an explicit triggering condition: 'Use when the person wants to reach YesTechie themselves.' That is a clear usage context, though it stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use submit_contact instead).
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.