Sendblox

Import Contacts

import_contacts

Idempotent

APP: Imports inline contacts labelled manual, google_sheets, hubspot, capsule, or airtable. It does not pull a CRM. Attio, Salesforce, Zoho, Dynamics, Pipedrive, Monday, ClickUp, and Apollo audiences are chosen with update_campaign. CSV is unavailable. Large imports return a job id. Does not send.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "import_contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`contacts`	No
`idempotencyKey`	No
`externalProjectId`	No
`externalCampaignId`	No
`externalObjectiveId`	No
`externalCorrelationId`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	No
`result`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`summary`	No
`blockers`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`readiness`	No
`requestId`	Yes
`retryable`	No
`nextPossibleActions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that large imports return a job id (an async pattern the agent must handle) and that it does not send, bounding the side effects. It does not explain permission requirements or what the idempotencyKey does behaviorally, so it stops short of fully covering a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Very short and front-loaded: the supported sources and the invalid-source routing come first, then the async and no-send caveats. The telegraphic style ("APP:", "CSV is unavailable.") trades a little readability for density but wastes nothing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and the job-id note is a helpful addition. But for a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, leaving the external*Id and idempotency parameters undocumented means an agent cannot reliably populate them from the description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description only echoes the source enum values plus a vague hint that contacts are inline. The six other parameters (contacts, idempotencyKey, and the four external*Id fields) get no explanation of format, purpose, or precedence, which is a substantial gap the description should have closed.

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 and resource ("Imports inline contacts") and immediately bounds the scope by listing exactly the five source labels that are in the enum. It also explicitly separates itself from the CRM-sync path, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings such as sync_integration or build_audience.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (inline contacts from manual, google_sheets, hubspot, capsule, airtable) and when-not-to-use (Attio, Salesforce, Zoho, Dynamics, Pipedrive, Monday, ClickUp, Apollo), naming the sibling update_campaign as the alternative for those. It additionally rules out CSV, removing a likely wrong turn.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Sendblox tools Inspect

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

Need Help?