Skip to main content
Glama

Sparetext

Find a contact

find_contact
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up people the user saved by name (or part of a number), to get the number to text. Sends always go to numbers, so confirm with the user which person they mean when more than one matches.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesA name, part of a name, or at least 3 digits of a number

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contactsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lowered. The description still adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: matching is fuzzy and can return multiple candidates, requiring user confirmation before acting. It stops short of saying what happens on zero matches, but the multi-match case is the one that changes agent behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no waste. The core action and its purpose come first, followed by the one conditional rule that actually changes behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A one-param, fully documented tool with annotations and an output schema, so nothing structural is missing. The only gap is the no-match path, which the description leaves unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already states "A name, part of a name, or at least 3 digits of a number." The description's "name (or part of a number)" paraphrases that without adding format, casing, or minimum-length detail, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb and resource: "Look up people the user saved" with the stated goal of obtaining "the number to text," which implicitly positions it as the lookup step before send_sms. It never names a sibling, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from the send/lookup framing rather than an explicit boundary.

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?

Gives a concrete disambiguation rule: confirm with the user which person they mean when more than one matches, plus the rationale that "sends always go to numbers." No explicit when-not or named alternative tools, but the operational context is clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources