Skip to main content
Glama
Blujay MCP Server

Blujay MCP Server

Official
by blujayhq

Save a contact

save_contact
Idempotent

Create a new contact or update an existing one by phone number, with optional name, email, and tag. Adding a tag can trigger a Blujay workflow to text the contact.

Instructions

Create a contact, or update the one with this phone number. Optionally add a tag. A tag can start a Blujay workflow that texts the contact.

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": {
      "phone_number": "<phone_number>"
    },
    "name": "save_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNo
nameNo
emailNo
phone_numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value on top by disclosing an external side effect the annotations do not capture — that supplying a tag can start a Blujay workflow that texts the contact. It does not say whether name/email are overwritten or merged on the update path, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the create/update scope comes first, followed by the optional parameter and its consequence, which is exactly the order an agent needs.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key semantics and the notable side effect; it stops short of describing field-merge behavior on update or what the call returns, which keeps it just under fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it only partly does: it explains phone_number as the identity/match key and tag as a workflow trigger, but name and email are never mentioned or tied to create-versus-update behavior.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a precise upsert verb pair (create or update) on a named resource (contact) and identifies the matching key (phone number), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and when a call will create versus modify.

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 the upsert semantics and by 'optionally add a tag', but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer find_contacts or opt_out_contact over this, nor any prerequisite for the workflow-triggering tag beyond the side-effect note.

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