Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Connections

by icu.connections
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Save several contacts at once

connections_contacts_import_contacts
Destructive

Save SEVERAL people the member pasted or described into their contacts in one call. Each needs a name; the rest is optional. A person who matches an existing contact by email or phone updates that contact instead of duplicating it. Returns how many were created, updated and skipped. Up to 200 people per call; it looks up nothing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
personNoLinked person to run this call as (first name). Omit to run as the connection's holder.
sourceYesA short lowercase label for this list, such as 'pasted-list'. Letters, digits, '_' and '-', up to 40 characters.
dry_runNoPreview only.
projectNoWorkspace to run this call in (id or name).
contactsYesThe people to save, one object each.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / dry_run / description
      Previous value: -"Preview only; nothing is written."New value: +"Preview only."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / dry_run / description
      Previous value: -"Preview only: return what this call would do, with nothing written."New value: +"Preview only; nothing is written."
    • addedInput schema / properties / person
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Linked person to run this call as (first name). Omit to run as the connection's holder.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / project
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Workspace to run this call in (id or name).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral content: matching by email or phone updates the existing contact instead of duplicating, and the response reports created/updated/skipped counts. It does not disclose which fields get overwritten on a matched update, which matters for a destructive-flagged tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the required-field rule, then the dedupe behavior, then the response and limits. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return shape (created/updated/skipped counts) and the batch ceiling. For a destructive-flagged bulk mutation the only meaningful gap is not saying what happens to existing fields on a matched contact update.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including nested contact fields. The description adds one genuine constraint not in the schema (200-person cap) and confirms the required-name rule, but says nothing about source, project, person, or dry_run beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Save SEVERAL people ... in one call" gives a specific verb (save), resource (contacts), and batch scope, which cleanly separates it from the single-record sibling connections_contacts_save_contact without needing to name it. The emphasized SEVERAL plus "one call" makes the batch nature unmistakable.

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?

It gives clear operative conditions: each person needs a name, the rest is optional, up to 200 per call, and "it looks up nothing" signals this is a write path, not a lookup path (so an agent needing to find someone should use a resolve/find tool instead). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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

All Connections toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources