contact_need【需要登录】对某条需求「找他聊聊」：与发起人建立 1-1 会话并登记接洽。任何人都能接洽、人数不设上限，需求不会因被接洽而下架。幂等：重复调用只返回已有会话。
【组合链——这是关键】返回 conversationId，直接接 send_message 在该会话继续谈；开聊前可先 get_conversation_needs 一次拿全双方需求上下文。谈妥交付后双方各调一次 complete_need 完成。
【失败语义】不能接洽自己的需求 400 cannot_contact_own_need；404 need_not_found；429 chat_quota_exhausted = 今天新开会话的额度用完了（回复老会话不受影响），返回体自带出口，别退避重试。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| needId | Yes | 需求 id，从 list_needs_feed / search_needs / get_need 拿 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by detailing idempotency semantics ('重复调用只返回已有会话'), login requirement, 'anyone can contact, no upper limit', and precise failure codes including 429 chat_quota_exhausted. The description also matches annotations and adds valuable operational behavior.
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?
The description is well-structured into clear sections: core behavior, composition chain, and failure semantics. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important action and login notice are front-loaded. No filler or redundancy is present.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers return value (conversationId), follow-up tool calls, prerequisites, idempotency, and all relevant error cases. It provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and handle outcomes.
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% and the single parameter needId is already described as the need id sourced from list_needs_feed / search_needs / get_need. The description references the target need but does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 对某条需求「找他聊聊」：与发起人建立 1-1 会话并登记接洽. It clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from related tools like complete_need by explaining the inviting behavior and that the need will not be taken offline.
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 gives explicit workflow guidance: returns conversationId, then use send_message to continue, optionally get_conversation_needs beforehand, and complete_need after delivery. It also explains quota failure semantics and tells the agent not to retry on 429. This is strong, actionable routing guidance beyond mere context.
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.
Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.
The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.
137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.
The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.