sendpulse_create_contactCreate a new WhatsApp contact by phone number for a SendPulse bot. Use bot ID and phone with country code to add contacts to your WhatsApp chatbot audience.
Create a new WhatsApp contact by phone number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | Phone number with country code (e.g. 972501234567) | |
| bot_id | Yes | Bot ID (from sendpulse_list_bots) | |
| account | No | Account name (only one configured: brand_a) | brand_a |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that — notably it doesn't say what happens when the phone number already exists (duplicate vs. error), which is the key behavioral unknown for a non-idempotent create.
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 eight-word sentence that front-loads verb, resource, channel, and identifier. No filler, nothing to trim.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain. But for a mutation tool the description omits the duplicate-phone behavior and doesn't mention the account/bot scoping, leaving the agent to infer the main edge case. Adequate but with a real gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear per-parameter docs for phone (country code format), bot_id (source tool), and account (default). The description only restates the phone-number identifier, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb+resource+channel: 'Create a new WhatsApp contact by phone number.' This clearly separates it from read/update siblings like get_contact and set_contact_name. It stops short of naming any sibling or scope constraints, so a 5 isn't warranted.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as sendpulse_send_message or sendpulse_send_template for reaching a contact. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.