WRITE: create a contact. Search existing contacts first to avoid duplicates, then confirm the requested details. Creates a contact record without associating it with a property. Returns a created record ID. POST /v1/contacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | No | ||
| city | No | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| nick_name | No | ||
| cell_phone | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| middle_name | No | ||
| office_email | No | ||
| contact_role_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds useful context beyond those fields: it is marked WRITE, creates an unassociated contact record, returns a created record ID, and uses POST /v1/contacts.
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 purpose is front-loaded with 'WRITE: create a contact,' and the remaining sentences are short, scannable, and free of repetition. Every sentence contributes workflow, scope, return, or endpoint information.
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?
The description covers the return value and property non-association, but for a 14-parameter creation tool with no required parameters and no output schema, it should clarify minimum required details or validation. That omission is material for correct invocation.
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?
There are 14 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and zero required fields, yet the description provides no field-level guidance at all. It does not say which fields are necessary, what formats are expected, or how contact_role_id relates to list_contact_roles.
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 ('create a contact') and distinguishes its scope from property-related siblings by noting it creates a contact 'without associating it with a property.' It also states the return value, giving an agent enough to identify the tool without opening the schema.
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?
It gives an explicit precondition and workflow: search existing contacts first to avoid duplicates, then confirm details before creating. It does not name the search sibling or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear.
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.