Iris

create_contact

create a new contact. requires write scope.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "create_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	tags for categorization
`email`	Yes	contact email address
`phone`	No	phone number
`website`	No	website URL
`job_title`	No	job title
`last_name`	No	last name
`first_name`	No	first name
`company_name`	No	company name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'requires write scope' — which is an auth prerequisite not captured in annotations. It says nothing about duplicate-email handling or what happens on conflict, which matters for a create operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope requirement. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an eight-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description omits what is returned (e.g., the new contact ID) and how duplicates or validation failures are handled. The scope note helps, but an agent still lacks enough to predict the result of a call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it earns no extra credit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('create a new contact'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like bulk_import_contacts or update_contact, so an agent must infer the single-record vs bulk distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus bulk_import_contacts or update_contact, and no prerequisites beyond the scope note. The agent gets no routing help from the description.

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

All Iris tools Inspect

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

Need Help?