crm.get_contact_workspaceRetrieve one private CRM contact with profile, attachments, summary, and activity history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| activity_limit | No |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful detail about the payload scope (profile, attachments, summary, activity history), which helps the agent understand what the workspace includes, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as default activity limit or whether the contact must be private.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and scopes the returned data. It earns its place without fluff, though it could have used the space to include sibling differentiation.
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?
An output schema exists and handles return-value details, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. Still, there is ambiguity against the sibling crm.get_contact, and the semantics of project_id and activity_limit are not clarified, leaving the agent to guess which tool returns what.
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%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'profile, attachments, summary, and activity history,' which loosely maps to activity_limit, but it does not explain the role of person_id or project_id, nor does it clarify that project_id is nullable and why. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve one private CRM contact') and lists what is included in the result (profile, attachments, summary, activity history). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling crm.get_contact, so some ambiguity remains about when to use one over the other.
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 this is a read-only workspace view because it mentions retrieving a contact with profile, attachments, summary, and activity history. It does not state when to use this tool versus crm.get_contact or crm.get_contact_workspace alternatives, nor does it mention any required context like project_id being nullable.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.