placetel_get_contactRetrieve a single Placetel contact by its numeric ID in markdown or JSON format. Use this read-only lookup to fetch contact details for a specific record.
Retrieve a single contact by its numeric id. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The contact id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' merely repeats structured data. Nothing is added about failure behavior for a missing/invalid id, permission requirements, or openWorld implications.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the operation and its key constraint are front-loaded before the safety note.
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 simple single-record getter with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main residual gap is that, with no output schema, it says nothing about what a contact record contains.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema; the description's 'numeric id' phrasing reinforces the id type but adds no format, range, or lookup guidance. The response_format enum is covered only by the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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+resource ('Retrieve a single contact') and disambiguates from list_contacts by saying 'single contact' and from the delete/update siblings by naming the retrieval semantics. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
The phrase 'by its numeric id' implies the precondition (you must already know the id), which suggests using list_contacts to discover it first, but the description never says this. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.