Skip to main content
Glama

dialogbrain

by io.github.saloprj
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

contacts_merge

🧬 Merge two contacts into one: all channel identities, scores and summaries of the second contact move onto the first, and the second contact record is deleted.

When to use:

  • contacts.find shows the same person twice (e.g. a messenger contact and an email contact)

  • The user explicitly asks to merge two specific contacts

Both ids are entity_id values from contacts.find. The merge is recorded in Review Duplicates and can be undone there (undo is heuristic, not guaranteed). Never merge on name similarity alone — confirm the pair is really one person first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
in_workspaceNoRun this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.
contact_id_keepYesentity_id (from contacts.find/sync) of the contact to KEEP; a person_id is accepted when sync returned no entity_id
contact_id_mergeYesentity_id (from contacts.find/sync) of the contact to merge INTO the kept one; a person_id is accepted too

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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description is rich about behavior — what moves, that the second record is deleted, that the merge is logged in Review Duplicates and undo is 'heuristic, not guaranteed'. However, it directly conflicts with the structured annotation destructiveHint=false while explicitly describing a record deletion, so the agent gets contradictory signals about safety. Credit for the substantive disclosure, penalty for the conflict.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the operation and its effect, then a scannable 'When to use' block, then the id-source and reversibility caveats. Every sentence carries new information (moved fields, deletion, undo location, name-similarity warning); nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, the reversibility path, and how to source the ids. It stops short of stating return/confirmation shape and permission or workspace prerequisites (the cross-workspace in_workspace behavior lives only in the schema), which keeps it just under complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (in_workspace, contact_id_keep, contact_id_merge) are already documented. The description restates that both ids are entity_id values from contacts.find and notes person_id fallback, adding little beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource (merge two contacts) and spells out the exact semantics: channel identities, scores and summaries move to the kept contact, and the second record is deleted. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like contacts_update, contacts_find, and contacts_add_channel.

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?

Has an explicit 'When to use' list (duplicate shown by contacts.find, or explicit user request), names contacts.find as the id source, and adds a concrete exclusion: 'Never merge on name similarity alone — confirm the pair is really one person first.' Both the trigger and the anti-trigger are covered.

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