Fetch a contact's details using its unique ID. Returns name and address information to verify or manage recipient data.
Get a PostGrid contact by ID. Returns contact details including name and address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Contact ID (e.g., 'contact_xxx') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the outcome ('Returns contact details including name and address') and the verb 'Get' implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only/no-side-effect behavior, error handling, or authentication expectations, leaving the behavioral disclosure minimal.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The operation is stated first, followed by the return-value summary. Every word 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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it retrieves by ID and returns contact details. The schema covers the parameter format, so nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly. The lack of alternative routing is a minor gap, but not a completeness failure for this simple operation.
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?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, 'id', with an example format. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond saying the lookup is by ID. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a PostGrid contact by ID.' It clearly distinguishes this single-resource retrieval from sibling tools like postgrid_create_contact, postgrid_list_contacts, postgrid_update_contact, and postgrid_delete_contact. It also states what is returned, removing ambiguity about the operation's purpose.
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 description implies the tool should be used when a contact ID is already known and the caller wants the contact's details. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as using postgrid_list_contacts when no ID is available or postgrid_create_contact when creating a new contact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.