Well

Add contact channel

well_add_contact_channel

Add a contact channel to a company or person.

Wraps the resource-scoped REST endpoints (POST /v1/{companies,people}/:id/{emails,phones,web-links,locations}).

channel + the matching value field:

email → value.email
phone → value.e164_number (E.164; a leading "+" is added if missing)
web_link → value.url (+ optional value.platform, default "website")
location → value.city, value.country (+ optional address_line1/2, region, postal_code) value.label is optional (defaults to "work").

NOTE: adding a phone is supported on a PERSON but NOT on a company (no endpoint) — that combination returns a clear error. To READ existing channels, use well_query_records on the parent (companies/people) or the channel root.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`value`	Yes	Channel value — fill the field(s) for the chosen channel
`parent`	Yes	Parent record type: company or person
`channel`	Yes	Channel to add: email \| phone \| web_link \| location
`parent_id`	Yes	UUID of the parent company or person
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`parent`	No
`channel`	No
`success`	Yes

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the underlying POST endpoints, the E.164 normalization ('a leading + is added if missing'), optional defaults for label and platform, and the unsupported company+phone case. This significantly helps an agent predict behavior before calling.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then uses compact bullet mappings and a final note for edge cases. Every line carries operational value; nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a nested-object, multi-enum creation tool, it covers all critical input semantics, the invalid phone/company case, and routing to the read tool. The output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. The definition is complete enough to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The channel-to-value mapping is explicit and goes well beyond the schema: email→value.email, phone→value.e164_number, web_link→value.url, location→value.city/country. It also clarifies optional fields and defaults. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds the crucial combination semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a contact channel to a company or person.' This goes beyond the title, defines the operation precisely, and is distinct from siblings like well_remove_contact_channel and well_query_records.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit alternative for reading channels ('use well_query_records on the parent'), and it warns against an invalid combination: phone on company returns a clear error. This is concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Well tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: CRUD for companies, people, and invoices; financial analytics (cash, cost, runway, holdings); connector management and invocation; schema discovery; querying; reconciliation; and contact channel management. No two tools could be confused for the same action.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the `well_verb_noun` pattern with consistent verb choices (create, get, list, update, delete, add, remove, run, resolve, query, invoke). The naming is predictable and makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

Tool Count4/5

With 26 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but every tool earns its place given the breadth of the domain (CRM, invoicing, financial analytics, reconciliation, connector management). The count is well-scoped and not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core CRUD, financial KPIs, reconciliation, and connector management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool to update contact channels or manage accounts), but the query and schema tools allow agents to work around them, and the primary workflows are fully supported.

Resources

Need Help?