respond_contact_exchange【需要登录】同意或婉拒对方发来的「交换联系方式」请求（exchangeId 从 get_contact_exchange_state 的 PENDING exchange 拿）。accept=true 表示同意：把我的联系方式快照交给对方、同时拿到对方的（结果在返回的 contacts 里），此操作不可撤回——必须先向用户明确确认；同意方也需至少一条联系方式。accept=false 婉拒，之后对方可再次发起。重复响应幂等回放。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accept | Yes | true=同意（交出联系方式，不可撤回），false=婉拒 | |
| exchangeId | Yes | 交换请求 id | |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: accepting is irreversible, requires user confirmation, shares contact snapshots bidirectionally, and requires the accepting party to have at least one contact. It also mentions idempotent replay for repeated responses. However, it doesn't detail exactly what happens to the conversation or whether rejection notifies the other party, but the core irreversible and confirmation requirements are disclosed.
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 compact but information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: authentication requirement, source of exchangeId, both accept branches, irreversibility, user confirmation requirement, and idempotency. It is well-structured with clear cause-effect phrasing and front-loads the most critical operational constraint (login + confirmation).
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: prerequisite state (PENDING exchange), auth, irreversible action and confirmation duty, the need for at least one contact, and idempotent behavior. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from invoking 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantics: it ties exchangeId to a PENDING exchange from a specific tool, explains accept=true/false consequences, and clarifies that results appear in the returned contacts. It doesn't add syntax details, but the value added over the schema is strong.
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 clearly states the action: respond to a contact-exchange request by accepting or declining (同意或婉拒). It specifies the source of the exchangeId (from get_contact_exchange_state's PENDING exchange), the semantic of accept=true/false, and the irreversible nature of acceptance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools.
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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool (when there is a PENDING exchange from get_contact_exchange_state), what must happen before accepting (must explicitly confirm with the user), and what the consequences are for each accept value. It also notes that declining allows the other party to re-request.
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.