google_contacts_getRetrieve a contact's name, email, phone, address, and organization using its resource name from Google Contacts. Use after listing or searching contacts.
Get a contact by resourceName with rich fields (name, email, phone, address, org).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| resourceName | Yes | Contact resource name, e.g. people/123 (from list/search). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses only that this is a read operation ('Get') and what fields it returns. It omits auth requirements (including how the 'account' nickname affects access), error handling for a missing contact, and any rate-limit context.
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 that packs purpose and return fields without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.
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 low-complexity getter with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return fields but omits usage routing and behavioral details. An agent would still benefit from knowing when to prefer this over list/search.
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 baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter details beyond the required 'resourceName' and the returned-field list. The optional 'account' parameter's nickname semantics are left entirely to the schema.
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 and resource ('Get a contact') and scopes it by 'resourceName', while listing the rich fields returned. This implicitly distinguishes it from the collection-returning siblings google_contacts_list and google_contacts_search, but it does not name those alternatives.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; it neither names alternatives like google_contacts_search nor states prerequisites. The phrase 'by resourceName' only weakly implies the identifier must already be known, e.g., from list/search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.