Skip to main content
Glama

contact_support

Contact Lemonade customer support to submit inquiries, report issues, or request assistance with insurance policies using chat, email, or phone.

Instructions

Contact Lemonade customer support

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectYesSubject of the support request
messageYesDetailed message for support
policy_idNoPolicy ID related to the support request (optional)
contact_methodNoPreferred contact method
emailYesEmail address for the response

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'contact_support' tool, which performs browser automation to submit a support request.
    async function handleContactSupport(args: {
      subject: string;
      message: string;
      policy_id?: string;
      contact_method?: string;
      email: string;
    }): Promise<string> {
      return withBrowser(async (browser, page) => {
        await page.goto(`${LEMONADE_BASE_URL}/contact-us`, {
          waitUntil: "domcontentloaded",
          timeout: 30000,
        });
        await page.waitForTimeout(1500);
    
        const title = await page.title();
        const contactMethod = args.contact_method || "email";
    
        const contactOptions: Record<string, string[]> = {
          chat: [
            "1. Open the Lemonade app on your phone",
            "2. Tap the chat icon in the bottom right",
            "3. Start a conversation with Maya (Lemonade's AI assistant)",
            "4. Or request to speak with a human agent",
          ],
          email: [
            `1. Email: support@lemonade.com`,
            `2. Subject: ${args.subject}`,
            `3. Include your policy ID: ${args.policy_id || "N/A"}`,
            `4. Message: ${args.message}`,
          ],
          phone: [
            "1. Call Lemonade support: 1-844-733-8666",
            "2. Available Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET",
            `3. Reference policy ID: ${args.policy_id || "N/A"}`,
          ],
        };
    
        return JSON.stringify({
          status: "success",
          message: "Support contact information retrieved.",
          contact_details: {
            subject: args.subject,
            message: args.message,
            policy_id: args.policy_id || "Not provided",
            preferred_contact: contactMethod,
            email: args.email,
          },
          contact_options: {
            app_chat: "Open Lemonade app and use chat feature",
            email: "support@lemonade.com",
            phone: "1-844-733-8666 (Mon-Fri 9am-5pm ET)",
            help_center: `${LEMONADE_BASE_URL}/faq`,
          },
          instructions: contactOptions[contactMethod] || contactOptions.email,
  • Schema definition for the 'contact_support' tool, specifying input parameters.
    name: "contact_support",
    description: "Contact Lemonade customer support",
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        subject: {
          type: "string",
          description: "Subject of the support request",
        },
        message: {
          type: "string",
          description: "Detailed message for support",
        },
        policy_id: {
          type: "string",
          description: "Policy ID related to the support request (optional)",
        },
        contact_method: {
          type: "string",
          enum: ["chat", "email", "phone"],
          description: "Preferred contact method",
  • src/index.ts:562-564 (registration)
    The switch-case block where the 'contact_support' tool is invoked based on the tool name received from the MCP server.
    case "contact_support":
      result = await handleContactSupport(args as Parameters<typeof handleContactSupport>[0]);
      break;
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to specify response expectations (async vs sync), whether a ticket ID is returned, rate limits, or confirmation mechanisms. 'Contact' implies the action but not the outcome.

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?

The single sentence is efficient with no redundant words, achieving brevity. However, it is underweight for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, leaving significant informational gaps that additional sentences could fill.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It omits what the tool returns (ticket reference?), response timeframes, and the relationship between the optional policy_id parameter and the support request routing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 5 parameters including the enum values for contact_method. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Contact') and target ('Lemonade customer support'), providing specific verb and resource identification. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'file_claim' or 'view_policy' regarding when human support is preferable to automated operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus handling issues through other available tools (e.g., checking claim status first, or filing a claim directly). It lacks prerequisites, escalation criteria, or exclusion conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-lemonade'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server