mcp

contact_me

Send a contact request to TransparentCars so a human gets in touch. Only call this when the user explicitly asks to be contacted, provides their own name and a phone or email, AND agrees to share those details — pass consent=true only then. Never invent, guess, or use placeholder / example / test contact details: pass ONLY the real name and real phone or e-mail the user gave you in this conversation. If you don't have a real phone or e-mail from the user, ask them for it before calling — do not submit fake values. Submitting shares the provided contact details per the TransparentCars privacy policy.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "contact": "<contact>",
      "consent": "<consent>"
    },
    "name": "contact_me"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The person's name (as they gave it)
`consent`	Yes	Set true ONLY if the user explicitly agreed to share their contact details and be contacted
`contact`	Yes	A phone number or email where they can be reached
`message`	No	What they want / their question

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contact

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A phone number or email where they can be reached",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / email

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Email (phone OR email required)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / phone

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Phone number (phone OR email required)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "consent"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "contact",
+  "consent"
+]

First observedJul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that calling shares the provided contact details per the TransparentCars privacy policy, and emphasizes that consent=true is required. It also warns about not submitting fake values, covering the key behavioral trait of data submission and consent. It does not describe what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation), but for a simple contact tool, this is adequate.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph but each sentence adds value: purpose, conditions, data authenticity requirement, and privacy note. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides operational guardrails. It could be slightly tightened, but it is not bloated and the structure is logical.

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 contact-request tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to call, what data to pass, consent semantics, and the privacy implication. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without ambiguity. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description adds critical semantic meaning: it clarifies that 'consent' must be true only if the user explicitly agreed, and that 'contact' and 'name' must be the user's real details, not placeholders. It also explains that the 'message' is what the user wants, which is not fully clear in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's definitions.

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 clearly states the tool sends a contact request to TransparentCars for a human to follow up, using a specific verb ('Send a contact request') and a concrete resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, which are about calculations, listings, or quotes.

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?

The description gives explicit conditions for when to call (user explicitly asks, provides real name and phone/email, and agrees to share), and explicitly warns against inventing or guessing contact details. It also instructs to ask for missing info, providing a clear decision path. Since no sibling performs a similar function, alternatives are not needed, but the conditions fully cover when to use and when not to.

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

All mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.