contacts_getRetrieve a complete contact record by its ID, including all fields, for use in iCloud contact management.
Get one contact with all fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_id | Yes | Contact URL/ID from contacts_list or contacts_search. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes 'all fields,' but it does not disclose behavior like not-found errors or permission requirements; with annotations covering the main concerns, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 single-parameter get operation with a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description plus schema covers everything needed. The ID source is documented in the schema, and the read-only/idempotent behavior is already annotated.
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%, so the schema fully documents contact_id and its source. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered parameters.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one contact'), and 'all fields' distinguishes it from list/search siblings. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
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?
The schema notes that contact_id comes from contacts_list or contacts_search, which implies the intended flow: find first, then fetch one. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the singular scope and ID-source hint provide clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.