Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
macos-agent-bridge

macos-agent-bridge

by juliusloon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

contacts_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a macOS contact by its stable identifier to read saved contact details.

Instructions

Read an accessible contact by identifier. [v1.0.0; permissions: contacts]

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": "contacts_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesStable native object ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
toolYestool name
errorYes
statusYes
versionYessemantic version

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the permission scope ('permissions: contacts') and the 'accessible' gating notion, which is real added context, but it says nothing about behavior for missing or inaccessible contacts.

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?

Very tight and front-loaded: the action and the identification method come first. The bracketed version/permission tag is slightly noise-like but carries permission information.

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?

An output schema exists so return details needn't be described, annotations cover the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented. Purpose, identifier method, and permission scope are all present; only edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the id parameter is fully documented as 'Stable native object ID'. The description's 'by identifier' corroborates but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and resource (contact) plus the identifier method, which distinguishes it from contacts_search and the mutation siblings contacts_create/contacts_update. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so it falls 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'by identifier' implies the caller must already have an ID (as opposed to contacts_search which finds them), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is only implied.

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