get-contactRetrieve contact details by ID or email address. Identify a specific contact using its unique con_xxx ID or email for targeted communication.
Retrieve information about a specific contact. Can be identified by ID (con_xxx) or email address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The contact ID (con_xxx) or email address. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup, but does not disclose error behavior for unknown IDs/emails, permission requirements, or what subset of contact data is returned. For a simple single-record read this is adequate but thin.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The second sentence largely duplicates the schema's parameter description, which is the only inefficiency.
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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects), so little is needed. However, there is no output schema, and 'information about a specific contact' does not indicate which fields come back, leaving the agent to call blind on the return shape.
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% and the schema already documents 'The contact ID (con_xxx) or email address.' The description repeats that same fact almost verbatim, adding no format detail, casing rules, or precedence (ID vs email) beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific contact'), which distinguishes it by implication from list-contacts and the other contact mutation siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation rests on the word 'specific' rather than a direct statement.
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: 'a specific contact' suggests single-record lookup versus list-contacts, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of what to do if the contact does not exist, or whether this is the right tool for bulk reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.