get_contactLook up a contact in an EmailOctopus list by ID or email address to verify details, status, or tags before updating or managing the record.
Look up a contact in a list by ID or email address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listId | Yes | List ID (from list_lists) | |
| contact | Yes | Contact ID or email address |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so safety and world-scope are covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no not-found/error behavior, no note that a contact may exist in one list but not another, and no indication of the return shape.
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 that identifies the action, the resource, and the accepted lookup keys with zero filler.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials. Only the not-found/ambiguous-match behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including that listId comes from list_lists. The description only restates the contact key formats (ID or email), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (look up) and resource (contact) plus the lookup keys (ID or email) and that it's scoped to a list. It is clear on its own, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_contacts, which an agent could confuse with a single-contact lookup.
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 'look up a contact ... by ID or email' - retrieve one contact rather than enumerate - but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., list_contacts for enumeration) is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.