how_to_hireFind the contact routes for hiring an AI and automation consultant, including what each channel is for and what to put in a first message. Sends nothing; you reach out yourself.
Contact routes: the site contact page, his Upwork profile, LinkedIn and the CV PDF, with what each route is for and what to include in a first message. This tool sends nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful clarification — 'This tool sends nothing' — which prevents an agent from treating it as an outreach action, but it says nothing about the return shape (URLs vs. free text) or that the content is static reference material.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the resource list and closing with the key negative guarantee. Every element earns its place; only the missing explicit verb keeps it from being model-tight.
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?
With zero parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what content comes back, what each route is for, and that no message is sent. Nothing required for correct invocation is absent.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, with no parameter-level gaps introduced.
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?
The description names the concrete resource being returned — contact routes (site contact page, Upwork, LinkedIn, CV PDF) plus what to include in a first message — which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_profile or check_availability. What it lacks is an explicit verb ('returns'/'describes'), so the agent has to infer it is an informational lookup rather than an action.
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?
Usage is only implied: the enumeration of contact routes signals 'call this when you want to reach the owner', and 'This tool sends nothing' hints at the boundary of the tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to a sibling (e.g. 'use check_availability to see if he is free before contacting').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.