ohneben's Wafeq MCP

wafeq_contacts_retrieve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific contact's details from Wafeq by providing its ID. Get the full contact information you need.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Contacts · GET /contacts/{id}/

Retrieve contact

Endpoint for retrieving a single contact.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wafeq_contacts_retrieve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description repeats the read-only safety signal already provided by annotations ('READ-ONLY', 'GET') and adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention authentication, error behavior, response format, or any side effects, though annotations do confirm the operation is read-only and idempotent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, but it contains redundancy: 'Retrieve contact' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single contact' say essentially the same thing. The first line already provides the key information, so the extra sentences add little value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only retrieve operation with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not describe what the response contains, and it lacks any routing to sibling tools, so the agent gets no help choosing between this and related contact endpoints.

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 description does not explicitly describe the 'id' parameter, but the endpoint 'GET /contacts/{id}/' makes it clear that id is the path identifier of the contact. Given that there is only one simple string parameter, this is minimally sufficient despite the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve contact') and gives the exact endpoint 'GET /contacts/{id}/'. The phrase 'a single contact' distinguishes it from list-type tools in the sibling set, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like wafeq_contacts_list, wafeq_contacts_create, or wafeq_contacts_update. The only implied usage is that it retrieves one contact by ID, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction is provided.

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

Deploy Server