keap_get_contactGet a single contact by id. Keap: GET /contacts/{contact_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Comma-separated list of fields to return (field selection). | |
| contact_id | Yes | The contact id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the read-only nature, and the description's 'GET /contacts/{contact_id}' reinforces this without contradicting it. The description adds the concrete API endpoint but does not disclose potential error behavior, response format, or field-selection implications beyond what annotations and schema already imply.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the API endpoint is provided as concise supporting context.
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 simple single-resource GET with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. It could be more complete by indicating the default return behavior or what happens when fields is omitted, but the simplicity of the operation and annotation coverage make this a minor gap.
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 the schema already documents both contact_id and fields. The description only restates that lookup is by id and does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single contact by id', which clearly identifies both the action and the target. This differentiates it from sibling tools like keap_list_contacts (list vs. single) and keap_get_company (contact vs. company).
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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a specific contact_id and want one contact. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as keap_list_contacts for retrieving multiple contacts or keap_update_contact for modifying a contact, leaving usage differentiation mostly to inference.
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 targets a clearly distinct resource and action: list_* tools are separated by entity, get_* tools retrieve individual records, and create_/update_/apply_ tools perform unique mutations. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools consistently use the keap_ prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern, such as list_contacts, get_company, create_task, and update_contact. The naming convention is uniform across all 18 tools.
At 18 tools, the count falls into the borderline 16-25 range and feels somewhat heavy for a single server. Each tool does have a distinct purpose, but the set is larger than ideal and includes many read-only list/get operations.
Contacts and tasks have reasonable lifecycle coverage, but most other entities such as opportunities, companies, orders, products, and subscriptions are read-only. Notable operations like removing a tag, updating/deleting tasks, and updating opportunities are missing, creating potential dead ends.