Skip to main content
Glama

dialogbrain

by io.github.saloprj
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

contacts_find

Read-onlyIdempotent

👤 Search for contacts in your address book by name or username.

When to use:

  • User asks 'find contact X' or 'who is Y?'

  • User wants to know someone's username or ID

  • Before sending a message to verify contact exists

  • To get contact's channel reference for messaging

Examples: ❓ User: 'find contact named [name]' → contacts_search(query='[name]', limit=5)

❓ User: 'who is [full name]?' → contacts_search(query='[full name]', limit=1)

❓ User: 'search for @username' → contacts_search(query='username', limit=10)

Returns: name, username, channel, channel_ref, similarity_score, match_type. Plus:

  • entity_id: local DB key — pass to contacts.profile. Null for live-discovered contacts (skip contacts.profile for those).

  • telegram_user_id (when channel='telegram'): the Telegram user ID — pass to calls.make / messages.send. NOT entity_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results to return
queryYesName or username to search for (supports partial matches)
channelNoFilter by channel. OMIT to search across all channels.
in_workspaceNoRun this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / in_workspace
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations cannot: the entity_id vs telegram_user_id distinction, which consumer each ID feeds (contacts.profile vs calls.make/messages.send), and that entity_id is null for live-discovered contacts. It does not cover edge cases like zero-result behavior or result ranking beyond the returned similarity_score.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then cleanly sectioned into 'When to use', 'Examples', and 'Returns' — every block is useful. It is somewhat verbose and the examples invoke a stale tool name (contacts_search) that does not match this tool (contacts_find) or any sibling, which is a minor structural flaw rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly: field list plus precise downstream routing semantics for entity_id and telegram_user_id. Combined with the usage triggers, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, channel, and in_workspace, making 3 the baseline. The examples do implicitly demonstrate limit sizing (limit=5/1/10) and partial-match querying, but the description never explains the channel filter or in_workspace parameter, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for contacts in your address book by name or username'), with scope ('by name or username') that distinguishes it from contacts_discover (find new contacts), contacts_profile (fetch one contact), and contacts_research. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

An explicit 'When to use' block gives four concrete triggers (find contact X, who is Y, verify before messaging, get channel reference), and the worked examples map natural-language user intents to concrete calls with parameters. This is stronger routing guidance than most sibling tools provide.

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

All dialogbrain toolsInspect
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.

Resources