Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-workspace-mcp

google-workspace-mcp

by smk-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

contact_get

Fetches one Google contact by resource name from a specified account, enabling you to retrieve a person's details for a given account.

Instructions

Fetch one contact by its resourceName (e.g. 'people/c12345...').

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "resource_name": "<resource_name>"
    },
    "name": "contact_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYes
resource_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only single-record lookup but says nothing about required scopes, the meaning of the account parameter, or behavior on a missing/not-found resourceName.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence with the key identifier front-loaded, and the inline example earns its space by showing the expected string form. Nothing is padded, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented account parameter.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented required account parameter, the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants. An agent knows what it does but not what to pass for account or what to expect back.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters. The description usefully gives a format example for resource_name ('people/c12345...'), but the account parameter receives no explanation at all, leaving half the inputs undocumented everywhere.

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?

Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (one contact) plus the identifier it takes (resourceName), which distinguishes it from contacts_list and contacts_search. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the caller should already have a resourceName in hand. There is no statement of when to prefer this over contacts_search or contacts_list, and no note on what to do if only a name/email is known.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools