Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_get_contact

Retrieve a specific contact from the Pylon customer support platform using its unique ID to access contact details and information.

Instructions

Get a specific contact by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe contact ID

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:185-197 (registration)
    Registration of the 'pylon_get_contact' MCP tool, including input schema (id: string), description, and handler function that delegates to PylonClient.getContact(id) and returns formatted JSON response.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_get_contact',
    	'Get a specific contact by ID',
    	{
    		id: z.string().describe('The contact ID'),
    	},
    	async ({ id }) => {
    		const result = await client.getContact(id);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Handler in PylonClient that performs the actual API GET request to /contacts/{id}.
    async getContact(id: string): Promise<SingleResponse<Contact>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<Contact>>('GET', `/contacts/${id}`);
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the Contact object structure returned by the API.
    export interface Contact {
    	id: string;
    	name: string;
    	email?: string;
    	emails?: string[];
    	avatar_url?: string;
    	account?: { id: string; name: string };
    	custom_fields?: object;
    	portal_role?: string;
    }
  • Zod input schema for the tool: requires 'id' string parameter.
    {
    	id: z.string().describe('The contact ID'),
    },
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, what happens if the ID is invalid (e.g., returns error or null), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a database or API.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific contact by ID') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns contact data. It doesn't hint at the return type (e.g., object with fields) or potential errors, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior and output, which is inadequate for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The contact ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific contact by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pylon_list_contacts or pylon_search_contacts, which would require more specific language about retrieving a single contact versus listing multiple.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pylon_list_contacts or pylon_search_contacts. The description implies usage when you have a specific contact ID, but it doesn't explicitly state this or mention prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server