Zain Ahmed Platform MCP Server

submit_contact

Use this tool when a user explicitly asks to send an engineering question or feedback message to Zain Ahmed. Returns submission status and reference ID; reuse idempotencyKey safely for retries.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "submit_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Sender name
`email`	Yes	Sender email
`company`	No	Company or organization name
`message`	Yes	Detailed inquiry message
`subject`	No	Topic or inquiry subject
`idempotencyKey`	No	Generate once per inquiry; reuse on retries.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`success`	Yes
`referenceId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of a submission status plus reference ID, and the retry/idempotency contract, is real behavioral value. It does not state delivery characteristics (does it actually email the recipient, is it rate-limited, is submission reversible), which keeps it below a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the activation condition and followed by the return/idempotency facts. Nothing is padded and no sentence fails to earn its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so the brief mention of submission status and reference ID is sufficient, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. What remains unsaid — whether the message is emailed, delivered asynchronously, or surfaced elsewhere — is a minor gap for a mutation tool but not a blocking one.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so name, email, company, subject, message, and idempotencyKey all carry their own descriptions. The description's retry note on idempotencyKey largely restates the schema text 'Generate once per inquiry; reuse on retries,' so it adds little beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — send an engineering question or feedback message to Zain Ahmed — and the trigger phrasing makes it unmistakably the write/submission tool among a sibling set that is otherwise read-oriented (get_*, search_*, calculate_*). An agent can identify the operation 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The trigger condition is explicit and strong: only when a user *explicitly* asks to send a message, which correctly excludes agents volunteering outreach on their own. It stops short of naming a when-not case or a sibling alternative, but no sibling plausibly overlaps with this submission behavior.

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

All Zain Ahmed Platform MCP Server 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?