kisi_kartiFetch a person's full contact card by ID to see their organization, role, closeness, open promises, and recent notes. Use it to review who someone is and what to do next.
A person's card: organization, role, where you met, closeness, the user's own view, next step, open promises and recent contact notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Person id returned by kisi_ara |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned content (organization, role, closeness, next step, open promises, recent notes), which is important because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing edge cases such as an unknown id.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; each item in the list conveys distinct returned content. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly weakens the framing.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the field enumeration adequately covers the return shape. What is missing is any indication of when to call it versus kisi_ara, brifing, or son_gorusmeler, which matters given four siblings in the same domain.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains that id comes from kisi_ara. The description adds no parameter detail at all, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.
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 enumerates what the card contains (organization, role, where you met, closeness, promises, notes), which makes it clear this is a per-person detail view rather than a list. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like kisi_ara or brifing, leaving the agent to infer that this is a lookup-by-id retrieval.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to any alternative tool. The only routing hint ('Person id returned by kisi_ara') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself supplies nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed