lexware_deeplink_contactGenerate a direct URL and permanent alias to view a Lexware contact in the web app. Use the contact ID to access the contact page directly.
Get a direct URL to view a contact in the Lexware web app. Returns deeplink and its permanent alias url with the same value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Contact ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful return-value context (deeplink plus a permanent alias url with the same value), which matters since no output schema exists, but adds no other behavioral detail such as permissions or expiration.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero redundant text. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the return payload adequately. It could note whether an invalid/nonexistent id errors, but the omission is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.
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?
States a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("a direct URL to view a contact in the Lexware web app"), which distinguishes it from the many other deeplink tools by resource. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives like lexware_get_contact or lexware_list_contacts.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus lexware_get_contact or the other deeplink tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that select this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.