get-contactRetrieve a single contact by ID to view custom properties and suppression status, showing if they are unreachable due to bounce, complaint, or unsubscribe.
Get one contact by id, with its custom properties and whether it is suppressed (unreachable because of a bounce, complaint or unsubscribe).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The contact id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing what comes back beyond a bare record: custom properties and suppression status, with a plain-language explanation of suppression.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the return-payload detail appended rather than buried. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations or schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent what the call returns (custom properties and suppression). Missing only minor context such as behavior for an unknown id (error vs empty), which keeps it just short of full marks.
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% and the single uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's "by id" adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get one contact by id") plus the notable contents of the response. The word "one" cleanly separates it from the sibling list-contacts, though it never names that alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the required id ("get one contact by id"), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to list-contacts for looking a contact up by other fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.