get_person_connectionsFind all graph connections for a CRM person. Use a person ID to retrieve linked relationships and edges from the knowledge graph.
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the $0.05 cost and the API key requirement, which are not present in annotations or schema.
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 a single compact sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the only two operational caveats (cost and API key) in a brief parenthetical.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it lists, the scope, cost, and auth. It does not mention usage trade-offs against sibling graph-related tools, but this is a minor gap given the simple interface and existing annotations.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the tool operates on 'one CRM person,' giving some meaning to person_id. However, it does not clarify the expected format of person_id or how it relates to other person identifiers in sibling tools.
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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'List graph edges for one CRM person.' It is specific about operating on a single person's graph edges, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_entity_links or get_life_graph, so it stops short of a 5.
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 phrase 'for one CRM person' implies the tool is for retrieving the graph connections of a specific person, and the mention of API key required and cost gives operational context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_life_graph or get_person_interactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.