Clio Manage MCP

Create person contact

clio_create_person_contact

Create a new individual contact in Clio by specifying first and last names, with optional fields for email, phone, addresses, and company association.

Instructions

Creates a person (individual) contact in Clio.

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": {
      "first_name": "<first_name>",
      "last_name": "<last_name>"
    },
    "name": "clio_create_person_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`first_name`	Yes
`last_name`	Yes
`middle_name`	No
`prefix`	No
`suffix`	No
`title`	No
`company_id`	No	Link this person to a company contact.
`email_addresses`	No
`phone_numbers`	No
`addresses`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not idempotent, which is consistent with 'Creates'. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as required permissions, duplicate handling, or response structure. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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 a single succinct sentence, but it is too brief for a tool with 10 parameters. It sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to handle errors, or provide any usage context beyond the basic action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 10%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, leaving the agent to infer meanings from names alone. This is a critical gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a person (individual) contact in Clio, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'clio_create_company_contact' by specifying 'person' vs 'company'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or when to prefer 'clio_create_company_contact' or other contact-related tools.

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

Deploy Server