Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_new_contact_defaults

Retrieve new-contact default values from Rocketmatter to enforce consistency and avoid missing fields. Fails loudly on errors.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] New-contact defaults lookup. Fails loudly.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_new_contact_defaults"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds 'Fails loudly', which hints at error behavior but is vague. It does not disclose whether the lookup is cached, requires authentication, or what 'loudly' means (e.g., exception, log).

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 description is short and front-loaded with purpose, but the '[Not in LCS /v1]' prefix is an unnecessary technical detail for the average agent. The sentence is concise but lacks structure (e.g., no separate usage or behavior sentences).

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 that there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it is too minimal: it does not explain what 'defaults' means, whether they are configurable, or any prerequisites. The 'Fails loudly' note is incomplete.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, so baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter info, but with zero parameters this is acceptable.

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 it is a 'New-contact defaults lookup', which indicates a retrieve operation for default values when creating a new contact. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_contact' (retrieve existing) or 'create_contact' (create). However, the '[Not in LCS /v1]' prefix is cryptic and may confuse.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when setting up a new contact, but does not mention when not to use it or compare with similar tools like 'get_contact' or 'get_new_matter_defaults'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools