hail

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create a contact

create_contact

Save a new contact for the workspace. Provide at least one of phone_e164 (E.164, e.g. +14155551234) or email — the API rejects (422) a contact with neither. A duplicate phone or email on an existing contact returns 409.

Instructions

    Example:
        create_contact(name="Maya Chen", phone_e164="+14155551234")

    Returns the created contact entry as a dict. On failure returns
    ``{"error": "<message>"}`` instead.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`email`	No
`phone_e164`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.29.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (which only say non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent) by disclosing the 422 validation rule, the 409 duplicate behavior, and the return shape including the error-dict failure mode. That is exactly the mutation-side context an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then example, then return behavior — a sensible order with no filler. The indented multi-line formatting and backticks are slightly clunky for tool text.

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 3-parameter create tool this covers the validation rule, duplicate behavior, and return convention; the output schema makes the return description redundant but harmless. Only missing piece is any hint about checking lookup_contact first.

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 coverage is 0% (only bare titles), so the description carries the load: it defines phone_e164 as E.164 with a literal example and clarifies email is an alternative constraint, not optional fluff. It says nothing about 'name' semantics beyond the example, keeping it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a new contact for the workspace'), which clearly separates it from read siblings like list_contacts and lookup_contact. It never spells out the sibling contrast explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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 concrete preconditions: at least one of phone_e164 or email, otherwise 422; duplicates yield 409. It doesn't explicitly route the agent to lookup_contact/check-before-create, but the duplicate rule implies that workflow.

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