clickedu-mcp

get_chat_contacts

Retrieve your Clickedu chat contacts to identify who you can message. Use the contact list to choose recipients before sending a chat message.

Instructions

Your chat contacts (Messaging/Chat).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_chat_contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it provides none. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only listing, whether it is scoped to the authenticated user, how results are ordered or paginated, or what the returned contact records contain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single fragment is short but under-specified rather than concise; it is not a sentence and contains no front-loadable detail. Brevity here comes at the cost of the information an agent needs, not from editing out waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, and there are no parameters to document, but the description still omits the basic framing (read-only listing of the caller's chat contacts, scope) needed to choose it confidently over the sibling messaging tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface the description needs to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Your chat contacts (Messaging/Chat)" essentially restates the tool name get_chat_contacts rather than stating what the tool does with a verb. The parenthetical does narrow the domain to the messaging/chat surface, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling list_message_recipients or get_inbox.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative list_message_recipients. The only inference an agent can make is that this relates to chat, which is already implied by the name.

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