Use to move already saved contacts into the CRM without a campaign. New people: upsert_linkedin_contact (with LinkedIn URL) or add_crm_contact (without). Add saved contacts to the CRM as leads without putting them in a campaign (stage prospect). Each lead is linked to its CRM company automatically by company name. Idempotent: contacts already in the CRM are reported, not duplicated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real context: that existing CRM contacts are 'reported, not duplicated', that leads land at stage prospect, and that each lead is auto-linked to its CRM company by name. These are behavioral facts beyond the annotation flags, though return/report format is not detailed.
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?
Front-loaded with 'Use to...' and efficiently enumerates alternatives and behavior. It is slightly redundant, restating the add-contacts-without-campaign idea in the second sentence after the first already said it.
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?
With no output schema and a single parameter, the description covers the salient behaviors: no campaign, prospect stage, auto company linking, idempotency. It omits the 200-contact batch limit and any return detail, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single required contact_ids array. It never describes the parameter, its format, or the 200-item limit, but the name and purpose make 'IDs of saved contacts to add' reasonably inferable, landing at the minimum-viable bar.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: move already-saved contacts into the CRM as leads at the prospect stage. Explicitly distinguishes itself from add_contacts_to_campaign ('without a campaign') and routes new people to upsert_linkedin_contact or add_crm_contact, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use (already saved contacts, not new people) and names the alternatives for the excluded case (upsert_linkedin_contact with LinkedIn URL, add_crm_contact without). The contrast against campaign-add is also stated, leaving little to inference.
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.
