save_outreach_contactLog outreach contact details to an Excel file, capturing name, company, email, phone, channel, status, and notes for tracking.
Append a row to outreach_contacts.xlsx (Date, Name, Company, Email, Phone, Channel, Status, Notes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| status | No | contacted | |
| channel | No | ||
| company | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully says the operation appends a row rather than overwriting existing data, but it does not disclose duplicate handling, file creation behavior, permissions, or failure modes for a write operation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It immediately conveys the action, destination file, and written columns.
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?
The tool is a write operation with seven parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations. Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values, the description is too thin about usage conditions, parameter defaults, and append semantics for an agent to call it with confidence.
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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It maps parameters to spreadsheet columns, but does not explain the required 'name', defaults such as status='contacted' and channel='email', allowed values, or why 'Date' appears in the column list but not in the schema.
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 states a specific verb and target resource: append a row to outreach_contacts.xlsx, and it enumerates the columns written. This clearly distinguishes saving a contact from sibling tools like list_outreach_contacts and send_email.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_outreach_contacts or add_do_not_contact. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and append action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.