request_contact_exchange【需要登录】在 1-1 会话里发起「交换联系方式」请求：对方同意后，双方的微信/电话/邮箱等联系方式互见（各自快照，之后改资料不回溯）。要求自己至少填了一条联系方式（no_contact_info 时先用 add_profile_link 补 contact 组链接）。已交换过会报 already_exchanged；对方已有待处理请求会报 peer_request_pending（此时应改走 respond_contact_exchange）。自己重复发起幂等回放。
【注意】这会真的向对方发出请求消息——发起前请向用户确认。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversationId | Yes | 会话 id（仅 1-1 会话） |
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 only convey readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true. The description adds crucial behavioral context: it sends a real request message to the peer, contact snapshots do not retroactively update, specific error codes occur, and repeated self-initiation is idempotently replayed. Nothing contradicts the annotations.
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 dense but every sentence earns its place: main action, snapshot semantics, prerequisite, error routing, idempotence, and a user-confirmation warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured so an agent can quickly extract the critical constraint.
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 side-effectful mutation with no output schema, this is complete: it covers prerequisites, failure modes, alternative routes, idempotent behavior, snapshot semantics, and the need for user confirmation before sending. An agent has everything required to invoke it correctly.
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 single parameter conversationId is already fully described in the schema with '会话 id（仅 1-1 会话）'. The description reinforces the 1-1 constraint but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('发起') and resource ('交换联系方式请求') scoped to 1-1 conversations. It clearly differentiates from the sibling respond_contact_exchange by positioning this as the initiating side of the exchange.
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?
Provides explicit usage conditions: only in 1-1 sessions, requires the user to have contact info, and directs the agent to add_profile_link when no_contact_info applies. It also names the exact alternate path (respond_contact_exchange) for peer_request_pending and instructs confirming with the user before sending.
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.