marketsharp-mcp

marketsharp_contacts_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single MarketSharp contact by ID to access names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, and do-not-contact flags for customer or prospect lookups.

Instructions

Get one contact (customer or prospect) by contact ID: name, addresses, emails, phone numbers and do-not-contact flags.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contactId": "<contactId>"
    },
    "name": "marketsharp_contacts_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contactId`	Yes	MarketSharp contact ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that the record covers both customers and prospects and enumerates the returned data categories, but says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown or invalid.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and identifier, followed by the payload summary. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient; listing the returned field groups partly compensates for the absent output schema. The only gap is not stating what happens on a missing or invalid ID.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines contactId. The description only echoes that the ID identifies a contact, adding no format, source, or validity detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get one contact') and scopes it to a single record fetched by contact ID, which separates it from the list/search siblings by shape of retrieval. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'by contact ID' — an agent can infer this tool requires a known ID and is not for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement pointing at contacts_search or contacts_list for ID-less lookups.

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