get_people_linksList all graph edges and connections for a specific CRM person using their person ID, providing a clear view of linked relationships and network.
Alias of get_person_connections — list graph edges for one CRM person. ($0.05; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| person | No | ||
| connections | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing the cost ($0.05) and the API key requirement, and by clarifying that the tool is an alias rather than an independent operation. It does not describe error behavior, but for a simple read-only lookup this is acceptable.
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?
The description is one sentence and front-loads the core meaning. The parenthetical cost and API key requirement are efficient additions. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the operation, scope, cost, and auth requirement. It could be more complete by defining what graph edges represent or how to source a person_id, but those gaps are minor given the simplicity of the tool and the existing output schema.
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%, and the only parameter, person_id, has no schema description. The phrase 'for one CRM person' gives minimal semantic context that person_id refers to a CRM person, but the description does not explain the expected format, where the id comes from, or any constraints. With no schema-level documentation, this is insufficient compensation for the single parameter.
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?
The description specifies the action ('list graph edges') and the resource ('one CRM person'), which is concrete and scoped. It also identifies itself as an alias of get_person_connections, giving an agent a clear anchor, though it never defines what a 'graph edge' is and does not distinguish itself materially from the sibling it aliases. This is clear but not maximally distinct.
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?
The description tells the agent this is an alias of get_person_connections but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_entity_links, get_people, or get_person_neighborhood. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information beyond 'API key required.' The agent must infer most usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.