lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

smokeball_get_layout_contacts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch Smokeball layout contacts for a project-bound connector account, routing requests through the authorized connector to return the relevant contact data.

Instructions

Smokeball connector operation get_layout_contacts (platform tool smokeball.get_layout_contacts).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	Yes
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / effect

Added value: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish the safety profile. It adds useful context about governed-account routing and notes that Spring verifies the effect must be 'read,' which is behavior beyond the raw schema. However, it does not describe what happens on success, error conditions, or output semantics, and the approval_ref note about 'resuming a write' feels like generic boilerplate on a read-only tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The Args section is compact and scannable, and each parameter earns its place. However, the opening sentence merely restates the tool name and adds no information, which wastes the prime position. Overall it is acceptably concise but not tightly edited.

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?

Despite covering parameter semantics, the description omits the core domain behavior: what layout contacts are, how they are filtered, and what the returned data represents. It also fails to differentiate this from closely related smokeball contact tools. With a low-purpose description and no usage guidance, an agent cannot confidently decide to invoke this tool even though the output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It provides concise semantic labels for all seven parameters, including stable identity for idempotency_key, project-bound alias for connector_account_ref, and the required 'read' const for effect. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's bare type-only definitions, though it does not explain how to structure the arguments JSON string.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description opens by restating the tool name as 'Smokeball connector operation get_layout_contacts' without ever stating what the operation actually does. It never explicitly says that the tool retrieves contacts associated with a layout or what a 'layout contact' is. The name carries the only real semantic signal, but the description itself is nearly tautological.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as smokeball_list_contacts or smokeball_get_layout. The only context is 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' which speaks to routing constraints, not selection conditions. There are no explicit or implied usage criteria.

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

Deploy Server