nylas_get_contactGet a single contact by id. Nylas v3: GET /v3/grants/{grant_id}/contacts/{contact_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grant_id | No | Connected-account grant id. Overrides NYLAS_GRANT_ID for this call. | |
| contact_id | Yes | The contact id to fetch. |
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of the HTTP endpoint provides minimal extra behavioral context. No other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication) 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 very concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core function.
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 get-by-id tool with low complexity and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It includes the HTTP endpoint but does not describe the return value, which is 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters well-described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states 'Get a single contact by id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nylas_list_contacts (which lists contacts) and nylas_get_message (different resource).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools.
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 distinct resource and action: create vs list vs get for specific entities like draft, event, calendar, contact, grant, message, folder. There is no overlap, as even similar verbs like 'list' are paired with unique nouns. Agents can easily select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a uniform 'nylas_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case, with clear and predictable verbs (create, get, list, send) and nouns (draft, event, calendar, etc.). The naming is fully consistent across all 15 tools.
With 15 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Nylas integration covering email, calendar, and contacts. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count falls comfortably within the ideal range of 3-15 tools.
The tool set covers reading and limited creation (drafts, events) but lacks update and delete operations for all entities, as well as create for contacts. This leaves notable gaps for full lifecycle management, though core workflows like listing and fetching are present.