exclude_contactsAdd or update your team's contact exclusions.
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": {
"body": "<body>"
},
"name": "exclude_contacts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe write. 'Add or update' adds genuine upsert semantics beyond the annotations, but the description says nothing about what an 'exclusion' does downstream (e.g. blocks sends), whether these are additive, or what permissions are needed.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is fine here, though the space saved is not spent on the missing parameter meaning.
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?
A mutation tool with a nested required object, zero schema documentation, and no output schema leaves core questions unanswered: what entity_ids accept, whether exclusions are additive or overwritten, and what a successful call returns.
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 single parameter is a nested object, yet the description explains neither team_id nor entity_ids. Crucially, an agent cannot tell from either source what an 'entity id' refers to (profile id? email? podcast id?).
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?
States a specific verb ('Add or update') and resource ('contact exclusions') with team scope. It is distinguishable from the read-only sibling list_excluded_contacts, though the description never names it.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_excluded_contacts or add_contacts_to_campaign, no prerequisites, no note on whether this replaces or merges existing exclusions.
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.