get_contactRetrieve detailed contact information by ID to quickly access stored engagement and profile data. Resolves the need for a targeted view of a single contact's record.
Get detailed information about a specific contact by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_id | Yes | ID of the contact to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond 'detailed information' and does not mention edge cases, permissions, or return format, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation and the key selection criterion, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 read-only get-by-ID tool with one required parameter and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be more complete by explicitly noting that list_contacts or search_contacts should be used for non-ID lookups, and by clarifying what 'detailed information' includes since there is no output schema.
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 contact_id is already fully documented. The description's 'by ID' aligns with the parameter but adds no new constraints, formats, or relationship details, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Get ... contact') and identifies the selector ('by ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools like list_contacts and search_contacts. The operation is unambiguous for an agent selecting a tool.
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 'a specific contact by ID' clearly signals that this tool is for retrieving one known contact, not for listing or searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.