crm.get_business_card_importRead sanitized state and result identifiers for one owner-bound business-card import handoff without returning card data, contact details, or storage references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| import_intent_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that the returned state is sanitized, owner-bound, and deliberately excludes card data, contact details, and storage references. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with every clause contributing scope or exclusion information. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.
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?
The tool is simple, read-only, and covered by both annotations and an output schema, which helps completeness. However, the description does not clarify why project_id is needed or how the import_intent_id relates to the handoff workflow, so an agent may still be uncertain when calling it.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should help explain the parameters, but it never mentions import_intent_id or project_id by name or role. It only refers generically to 'one owner-bound ... import handoff,' leaving project_id's purpose especially unclear.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('business-card import handoff'), and a precise scope: it returns only sanitized state and result identifiers. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly excluding card data, contact details, and storage references.
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?
The description implies a workflow context—this reads the state of an import handoff, likely after prepare_business_card_import—but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus a sibling or when not to use it. The usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.