Add a single contact
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": {
"email": "<email>",
"firstName": "<firstName>"
},
"name": "add_contact"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| Yes | |||
| title | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| firstName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely says 'add', providing no information about side effects, idempotency, duplicate handling, permissions, or response format. The description adds almost nothing beyond the tool name.
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 a single short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It fails to include essential context, making the brevity a deficiency rather than a strength.
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?
Given the tool has six parameters, two required, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, a one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what a 'contact' entails, how tags are used, or what the response will be, making it impossible for an agent to invoke correctly with confidence.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the six parameters. It does not even clarify that email and firstName are required or explain the purpose of tags, company, title, or lastName, leaving the agent with no compensatory semantics.
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 clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Add') and object ('a single contact'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'add_contacts' by emphasizing 'single'. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates from other add tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'add_contacts' or other add tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.
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.