Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Rephonic

Rephonic

Official
by getrephonic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

contacts

Retrieve email contacts, contact pages, and social media accounts for a podcast. Quality indicators show manual verification, potential invalidity, and community ratings.

Instructions

Returns email contacts, contact pages, and social media accounts for a podcast. Includes quality indicators: concierge (manually verified), warning (likely invalid), and upvotes/downvotes.

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": {
      "podcast_id": "<podcast_id>"
    },
    "name": "contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
podcast_idYesThe Rephonic podcast ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return of quality indicators ('concierge', 'warning', 'upvotes/downvotes') and specifies the types of contacts. While it doesn't mention side effects or auth, the simple read nature is implied. No contradiction.

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, zero waste. Front-loaded with what it returns, followed by additional quality indicator details. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return types and quality indicators. It could mention handling of missing data or empty lists, but overall complete enough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the 'podcast_id' parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states it returns email contacts, contact pages, and social media accounts for a podcast. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_sponsors' by specifying contact-related data and includes quality indicators, making the purpose specific and unique.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving podcast contacts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'social_accounts' or 'list_sponsors'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools