contact_getRetrieve a contact's details by organization and contact ID, including custom field values and conversation count.
Get one contact by id, including custom field values and the number of conversations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contactId | Yes | The contact id (see contact_list or the contactId of a conversation). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the call returns - custom field values and a conversation count - which is otherwise undisclosed since no output schema exists.
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 no filler. Every clause earns its place by stating the operation, its scope, and its payload.
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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description plus rich annotations and a fully documented schema leave little ambiguity. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the description naming the returned fields, though it does not cover error cases or empty results.
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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including how to find them (contact_list, organization_list). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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') and clarifies scope by saying 'one contact', which implicitly separates it from the list operation. It also names the returned payload (custom field values, conversation count). It stops short of explicitly naming sibling contact_list/contact_update as alternatives.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The 'by id' phrasing hints that an id is required, but the description never states when to prefer this over contact_list or how the id is obtained. Usage must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.