get_contact_exchange_state【需要登录】查看某个 1-1 会话的「交换联系方式」状态：exchange = 最近一次交换（status=ACCEPTED 时 contacts 里双方联系方式互见），myContacts = 我会被交换出去的联系方式，canRequest = 当前能否发起新请求。
【组合链】canRequest=true → request_contact_exchange 发起；对方发起的 PENDING → 与用户确认后 respond_contact_exchange 响应；myContacts 为空 → 先用 add_profile_link 补 contact 组链接（微信/电话/邮箱）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversationId | Yes | 会话 id（仅 1-1 会话） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: login is required, and the semantics of exchange/myContacts/canRequest are explained including the ACCEPTED visibility condition. It could add output format or error details, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.
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 tightly organized sections: first the purpose and return-field semantics, then the actionable combination chain. Every sentence adds value, and the most important constraints are front-loaded.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: login requirement, input constraint, output field meanings, and downstream action routing. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
The sole parameter conversationId is already fully documented in the schema as the 1-1 conversation id. The description reinforces the 1-1 constraint but adds no extra parameter syntax or format details. High schema coverage keeps this at 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 names a precise operation: view the contact-exchange state of a specific 1-1 conversation. It clearly distinguishes this read query from siblings like request_contact_exchange and respond_contact_exchange by describing its read-only scope and the three state fields it returns.
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?
Explicitly states the login requirement and 1-1 conversation constraint, then gives a concrete combination chain: canRequest=true routes to request_contact_exchange, inbound PENDING routes to respond_contact_exchange, and empty myContacts routes to add_profile_link first. This is strong when-to-use and alternative 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.