crm.prepare_business_card_importCreate a short-lived private handoff to an authenticated SparkLaunch upload page without importing an image or changing a contact; the user must explicitly choose Upload and import on that page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person_id | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | 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?
It discloses non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the handoff is short-lived, private, authenticated, and does not import or mutate contacts by itself. This complements the idempotentHint and clarifies that the actual import only happens after explicit user action.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key constraints without wasted words. It is concise while still carrying the most important behavioral caveats.
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?
Given the low parameter complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructive intent, the description provides the essential context an agent needs. It explains the lifecycle, authentication aspect, and user action requirement sufficiently.
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%, and the description provides no parameter-specific guidance for project_id, person_id, or idempotency_key. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation or clarify relationships between parameters.
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 names a specific verb and resource: creating a short-lived private handoff to an authenticated SparkLaunch upload page. It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('without importing an image or changing a contact'), which differentiates it from siblings like crm.ingest_business_card.
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 gives clear context on how the tool is meant to be used: it only prepares the upload handoff and requires the user to explicitly choose Upload and import on that page. It states an important exclusion ('without importing an image or changing a contact'), but does not explicitly name the preferred alternative tool in a when-to-use comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.