get_contactGet a single contact by ID. Returns email, name, phone, custom field values, and engagement details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ActiveCampaign contact ID. | |
| _apiKey | Yes | ActiveCampaign API key (UI: Settings → Developer). | |
| account | Yes | Your ActiveCampaign account URL or subdomain, e.g. "https://youraccount.api-us1.com" or just "youraccount". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-activecampaign-api-key",
+ "account": "myaccount",
+ "id": "12345"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing return fields. It does not mention what happens on error (e.g., invalid ID) or any side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description's contribution is limited.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the second lists return fields. Ideal front-loading and brevity.
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 lack of output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. It does not mention error handling or response format, but for a simple get-by-ID tool with rich annotations, it is reasonably complete. Slightly more detail about return structure would be beneficial.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by specifying the returned data (email, name, etc.), indirectly clarifying the purpose of the 'id' parameter. However, it does not elaborate on _apiKey or account beyond the schema, so it slightly exceeds the baseline of 3.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'contact by ID', clearly indicating it retrieves a single contact. It lists the returned fields (email, name, phone, custom fields, engagement details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_contacts which returns multiple contacts.
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 implies usage for fetching a single contact by ID, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_contacts for lists, search_within for queries). No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided, making it adequate but lacking explicit guidance.
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.