Get the full RM-facing profile for one demo contact: the five Relational IP dimensions as Red/Yellow/Green, a Brief Me summary, cadence note, and current context. No numeric score — RMs see status, not the number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact | Yes | Contact id or name, e.g. 'Isabella Chen' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format in detail (five dimensions as Red/Yellow/Green, Brief Me, cadence, current context) and explicitly states the absence of a numeric score. It doesn't mention error cases or authentication, but for a simple read operation with a single parameter, it provides substantial behavioral transparency.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a critical clarifying constraint. Every word earns its place with no fluff or 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 has low complexity, no output schema, and the description explains the return contents comprehensively. It could add more detail about the meaning of 'current context' or possible errors, but for an agent with sibling context and a well-documented schema, this is sufficient.
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 100%, so the parameter is fully documented ('Contact id or name, e.g. 'Isabella Chen''). The description reinforces that it's for 'one demo contact' but doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full RM-facing profile for one demo contact.' It lists concrete components (Relational IP dimensions, Brief Me summary, cadence note, current context) and explicitly distinguishes from numeric-score tools with 'No numeric score.' This clearly separates it from siblings like list_demo_contacts and get_radar.
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?
It clearly indicates this is for retrieving a full profile of a single contact, implying one would use it after identifying a specific demo contact. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear and the 'No numeric score' note helps set expectations. It lacks a when-not-to-use statement, so not a full 5.
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.