Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
idoklad-mcp

idoklad-mcp

by honzsik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get contact

get_contact
Read-only

Retrieve full details for a single contact by ID, including address, IČO, DIČ, bank account, and default due days.

Instructions

Get full detail of one contact by ID: address, IČO, DIČ, bank account, default due days.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the result is the 'full detail' set and names the fields returned, which is useful context, but says nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent ID or about external API dependency implied by openWorldHint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation stated first and the returned fields after the colon. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by naming the concrete fields (address, IČO, DIČ, bank account, default due days). For a one-parameter read tool this is largely complete; only failure modes and any access prerequisites are absent.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema only says it is an integer. The phrase 'by ID' at least clarifies it is the contact identifier rather than a document or invoice ID, but no format, range, or lookup guidance is added.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Get full detail of one contact by ID') and enumerates the returned fields, which implicitly separates it from the list_contacts family. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, but an agent can still identify the operation unambiguously.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch this when you already have a contact ID and need complete detail. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of list_contacts or get_contact_stats as alternatives, and no statement of what to do if the ID is unknown.

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