twenty_get_personGet a single person (contact) by id. Twenty REST: GET /rest/people/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The person id. | |
| depth | No | How deep to hydrate related records: 0, 1, or 2. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'REST: GET' is consistent but adds no new behavioral traits like error handling, auth requirements, or depth parameter effects. It provides minimal added context beyond the annotations.
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 two concise, front-loaded sentences: 'Get a single person (contact) by id. Twenty REST: GET /rest/people/{id}.' Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary details.
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 get-by-id tool with annotations covering read-only and schema covering parameters, the description is nearly complete. It omits mention of the optional depth parameter's effect on the response or any error behavior, but these are partially covered by the schema and implied by the tool's simplicity.
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%, with both 'id' and 'depth' documented in the schema. The description repeats 'by id' without adding semantic details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 'Get a single person (contact) by id', identifying the specific action (GET), resource (person/contact), and scope (single by id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_people (multiple) and update_person (modification).
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 implies usage when a specific person's ID is known, and the REST endpoint reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like list_people for searching or other get tools for different entities, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool follows a clear action-entity pattern, so there is no overlap; even the metadata listing is distinct from record operations. No two tools could be confused.
All tools use the twenty_<verb>_<entity> convention with verbs create/get/list/update, in lowercase snake_case. Naming is perfectly consistent across the set.
20 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but justified by five core entities each needing create/get/list/update. However, the count feels a bit heavy, especially without delete tools.
The server covers create, read, and list for all entities, and update for most, but lacks delete operations entirely and does not support updating notes. These are notable gaps in full lifecycle management.