nc-mcp-server

create_contact

Create a new contact in an address book with name, email, phone, organization, title, or notes. Returns the saved contact object.

Instructions

Create a new contact in an address book.

Provide at least full_name, or given_name/family_name.

For a single email/phone, use the email/phone params. For multiple, use emails/phones with an array of {"value","type"} objects: emails=[{"value":"a@b.com","type":"WORK"},{"value":"a@home.com","type":"HOME"}] Do not provide both email and emails (or phone and phones).

Args: full_name: Full display name (e.g. "John Doe"). given_name: First name (e.g. "John"). family_name: Last name (e.g. "Doe"). email: Single email address (convenience, adds as TYPE=WORK). phone: Single phone number (convenience, adds as TYPE=CELL). emails: Array of {"value","type"} for multiple emails. Overrides email. phones: Array of {"value","type"} for multiple phones. Overrides phone. organization: Company/organization name. title: Job title. note: Free-text note. book_id: Address book ID (default "contacts").

Returns: JSON contact object with uid, full_name, and all set fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`note`	No
`email`	No
`phone`	No
`title`	No
`emails`	No
`phones`	No
`book_id`	No	contacts
`full_name`	No
`given_name`	No
`family_name`	No
`organization`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: single email/phone is added with TYPE=WORK/CELL, multiple emails/phones override the single parameters, and the return format is a JSON contact object. These details help the agent predict outcomes, especially since annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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?

The description is well-structured: a one-line summary, then requirements, parameter details, and return info. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds necessary information—no fluff. The length is justified given the 11 parameters and their interactions.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (many optional parameters, mutually exclusive sets, nested objects), the description covers all required information: field requirements, parameter semantics, examples, and return value. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without consulting the output schema or further documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter, including the nested structure for emails/phones with an example. It also clarifies the precedence (emails overrides email) and the default for book_id. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new contact in an address book.' It also specifies the minimum required fields (full_name or given_name/family_name), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_contact and delete_contact. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides explicit usage instructions: the minimum required fields, how to specify single vs. multiple emails/phones, and a warning not to provide both forms. It also clarifies the default for book_id. These guidelines tell an agent exactly when and how to use the tool, including constraints that prevent errors.

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

Deploy Server