contacts_getRetrieve full contact details—phone numbers, emails, and addresses—by providing a contact name.
Get full contact details including phone numbers, emails, and addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Contact name to look up |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, so the description need not restate safety. It adds that results are 'full' details with phone/email/address, but does not disclose behavior beyond that (e.g., exact-match requirement or error behavior). No contradiction.
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 word contributes to describing the tool's purpose and output.
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 one-required-param read-only lookup with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could benefit from one phrase clarifying exact-name lookup versus search, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.
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 description reinforces that returned details include phone/email/address, but it adds no additional meaning to the 'name' parameter beyond the schema's 'Contact name to look up'.
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 action ('Get full contact details') and resource (contacts) with explicit fields (phone numbers, emails, addresses). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling contacts_search, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.
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 or exclusion guidance is provided. The only hint is implicit in the required 'name' parameter; there is no mention of contacts_search for partial or fuzzy lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.