Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Connections

by icu.connections
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Import Google contacts

connections_import_google_contacts
Destructive

Import the member's Google contacts into their Connections contacts. People already there are merged, so running it again is safe. Returns the run id, counts created, updated and skipped, and whether it is finished; if not, call again with runId and nextCursor. With no Google account connected, nothing is imported and the answer has the connect link.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runIdNoThe runId from the previous answer, to continue the same import.
cursorNoThe nextCursor from the previous answer, to continue where it stopped.
personNoLinked person to run this call as (first name). Omit to run as the connection's holder.
dry_runNoPreview only.
projectNoWorkspace to run this call in (id or name).
accountIdNoWhich connected Google account to import, from an earlier answer. Omit it to use the member's main Google account.

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[]
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the merge semantics on existing people, the idempotency guarantee, the continuation protocol (runId + nextCursor when not finished), the returned fields, and the unconnected-account fallback that returns a connect link. The only mild tension is calling a destructiveHint=true operation 'safe', though the sentence is scoped to re-running rather than to overwriting.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and merge semantics before the pagination mechanics and the edge case. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 correctly explains the return payload (run id, created/updated/skipped counts, finished flag) as well as the loop-termination condition and the no-account path. Remaining gaps are minor: dry_run behavior and what merging does to conflicting field values on existing contacts.

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 runId, cursor, person, dry_run, project and accountId are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces runId/cursor as the continuation pair and implies accountId defaults to the main account, but adds nothing about dry_run or project beyond what the schema says, so 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource (import Google contacts into Connections contacts), and the 'Google' qualifier separates it from the generic sibling connections_contacts_import_contacts. It never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being routed.

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?

The description gives clear operational context: rerunning is safe because of merging, and an unfinished run must be continued by calling again with runId and nextCursor. It also states the behavior when no Google account is connected. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over the file-based import sibling.

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