create_contactCreate a contact record for a client, supplier, or lead with email, phone, company name, and notes.
Create a new contact (client, supplier, lead).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Contact or company name | |
| type | No | Contact type: client, supplier, lead, other | |
| No | Email address | ||
| notes | No | Notes about this contact | |
| phone | No | Phone number | |
| company_name | No | Company/organisation name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a write operation), idempotentHint=false (each call creates a new record), and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description merely confirms 'create', adding no extra behavioral context such as uniqueness constraints, required permissions, or response format. With annotations present, this is adequate but not enhanced.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes a useful parenthetical list of allowed types. There is zero fluff; every word adds value. This is a model of conciseness for a simple tool.
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 create-contact tool with 6 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by noting the 'other' type (present in the schema but omitted from the description) or stating that a new record is created each call, but these are minor gaps. The annotations and schema cover the rest.
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 every parameter (name, type, email, notes, phone, company_name) is already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. It does not clarify optionality or valid values beyond what the schema states.
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 clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'contact', and specifies the accepted types (client, supplier, lead). This distinguishes it from other create tools like create_opportunity and create_transaction. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. However, the purpose is self-evident from the name and description, so an agent can infer it is for creating a contact. It does not mention alternatives or scenarios where it should not be used, leaving the agent to rely on the resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.