obs_get_contactsRead contact records from OBS, with phone numbers and emails redacted by default. Set include_sensitive to true to retrieve sensitive details.
Read contact records from OBS (phones/emails redacted by default).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_sensitive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"obs_get_contactsDictOutput"New value: +"obs_get_contactsOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in structured fields: contacts come back with phones/emails redacted by default. It stops short of saying what changes when that default is overridden (permissions, auditing, or sensitivity implications).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the redaction default is placed immediately after the core action so it is read first.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary and the redaction note covers the main surprise. However, for a privacy-sensitive single-flag tool, the missing explanation of include_sensitive=true behavior leaves the agent unable to reason about the one decision this tool requires.
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% and the sole parameter include_sensitive is bare, so the description must carry the load. 'Redacted by default' implicitly explains the false default and hints at what the flag toggles, but it never names the parameter or states the consequences or authorization requirements of setting it true.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read contact records from OBS'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like obs_get_profile or search_itu_directory, which also surface personal data.
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?
No indication of when to call this versus obs_get_profile or the directory search tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The description gives no guidance about when unredacted data is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.