Ops MCP Server (Finamatik)

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_contact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a contact's full profile, deals, open tasks, recent notes, and orders using the contact ID from search_contacts.

Instructions

Full view of one contact: profile, deals, open tasks, last 5 notes, last 5 orders. Use the id from search_contacts (e.g. C-1007).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contact_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it bounds the response (only the last 5 notes and last 5 orders, open tasks only), which tells the agent the payload is truncated and not a full history.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The payload contents lead, and the id-provenance instruction follows as a second short sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still usefully signals truncation limits. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering input provenance, everything needed to call this correctly is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics, and it does: it identifies the parameter as the contact id, points to its source (search_contacts), and shows the expected format (C-1007). Only one parameter exists, so this is close to fully covered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full view of one contact') and then enumerates exactly what the view contains (profile, deals, open tasks, last 5 notes, last 5 orders). This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling search_contacts, which is a list/filter operation rather than a single-entity fetch.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete usage path: obtain the id from search_contacts and pass it here, with an example format (C-1007). It does not state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond the id source, but the context is unambiguous for a single-record fetch.

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

Deploy Server