get_contactFind Justin's email, LinkedIn, GitHub, and website in one place. Get direct contact information to reach out about opportunities or questions.
How to reach Justin: email, LinkedIn, GitHub, website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| github | No | ||
| website | No | ||
| No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the contact channels but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output format or data freshness. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists the available contact channels. Every word contributes meaningful information, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.
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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. An agent can confidently invoke get_contact knowing it returns Justin's email, LinkedIn, GitHub, and website contact information.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no input semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than on nonexistent parameters.
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 the tool's purpose: obtaining Justin's contact information via email, LinkedIn, GitHub, and website. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_profile and get_projects because it focuses specifically on how to reach Justin rather than on profile details or project lists.
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 phrase 'How to reach Justin' implies the tool is for contact info, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_profile. It provides clear context but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.