Add or update a contact in your FudanMailBox address book using an email address. Optional fields include name, phone, organization, tags, and notes.
Add or update a local contact by email address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| Yes | |||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| organization | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey upsert semantics (match on email, then create or update), which is real value, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether omitted fields overwrite or preserve existing values, or what happens on conflicting data.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity for a 6-parameter mutation tool borders on under-specification rather than conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and no merge/overwrite semantics leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.
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 0% across 6 parameters; only titles and defaults appear in the schema. The description adds only that email is the identity key, leaving name, tags, notes, phone, and organization completely unexplained in both places.
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 pair (add or update) and resource (local contact), with the matching key (email) identified. It is distinguishable from list_contacts/search_contacts/delete_contact, though it never contrasts itself with import_correspondents, which is the closest sibling in scope.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives such as import_correspondents for bulk additions or update paths for existing contacts. The agent must infer all routing decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.