Retrieve a single Apple contact by ID, including names, organization, emails, phones, and limited notes. Use it to look up contact details without modifying contacts.
Read-only: get one contact with names, organization, emails, phones, and bounded notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxChars | No | ||
| contactId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only:' in the description is largely redundant. The phrase 'bounded notes' adds a small amount of value by hinting that note content may be truncated, but no truncation rule, not-found behavior, or permission requirement is given.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-field list is the most useful part and comes early. The leading 'Read-only:' clause is the one element that duplicates annotation data rather than adding information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the right move. However, it omits how contactId is sourced, how maxChars affects output, and what happens when no contact matches, leaving gaps for a two-parameter read tool.
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 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. It never explains what contactId is, how to obtain it, or what maxChars controls, beyond the vague 'bounded notes' phrase that loosely gestures at the truncation limit.
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 and resource ('get one contact') and enumerates the returned fields (names, organization, emails, phones, notes). The singular 'one contact' implicitly distinguishes it from apple_contacts_search and apple_contacts_list_group_members, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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: fetching a single contact is contrasted with list/search by the word 'one'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over apple_contacts_search or what prerequisite (a known contactId) is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.