{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "google-people-api",
    "name": "Google People API",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/google-people-api",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Google People API\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/google-people-api, the October 2026 research run, assessed 14 October 2026. Grade B, 65.2 out of 100.\n\nThis is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.\n\nFor a coding agent working on Google People API: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.\n\n## 1. Reliability, 30 out of 100, up to 14 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 30: Graded with the hosted lines on the REST API. No status page covers the People API, since the Google Workspace Status Dashboard lists 37 products and Contacts isn't one of them (0). No readable incident history (5). Quota categories and per-method costs are documented, but the numbers sit in the Cloud console rather than the docs (5 of 15). A fixed full-sync quota that returns 429, ETags on contact updates, and guidance to send mutate requests for one user one at a time. No backoff formula was found on the People pages (10 of 15). No SLA for the API found (0). The REST API is v1 and generally available. The MCP server is a developer preview (10).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):\n\nHosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.\n\n- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.\n\nLocal packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.\n\n- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.\n\nProtocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.\n\n## 2. Payments \u0026 pricing, 35 out of 100, up to 8.1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 35: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). No charge was found, but there is no published per-unit price because the API isn't sold, and quota numbers aren't on the docs, which we read the same way as the Google Calendar listing (15). Free with a Google account and no card (20). A person creates a Cloud project, an OAuth consent screen and an OAuth client (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):\n\nThe published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).\n\n- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).\n\nPayment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.\n\nOpen-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.\n\n## 3. Schema \u0026 documentation, 79 out of 100, up to 3.4 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 79: A Google discovery document at revision 20261012, which is a machine-readable contract with typed schemas (25). developers.google.com/llms.txt returned 404 (0). Reference pages say what each method does and carry warnings that change how an agent calls it, such as the warmup search and sequential writes, and the MCP tool descriptions say when to stop and ask the user (18). Typed parameters with enums such as sources and sortOrder, and personFields is required where it matters (13). Examples in several languages per guide and a documented EXPIRED_SYNC_TOKEN reason, but no single error catalogue for the API (11 of 15). v1 in the path and a release notes page with a feed, though its only 2026 entry is 22 April (12 of 15).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):\n\nAPIs and MCP servers.\n\n- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.\n\nModels are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.\n\n## 4. Agent ergonomics, 83 out of 100, up to 2.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 83: personFields field masks and pageSize up to 1,000 on connections, with MCP search capped at 30 results (22). Page tokens, sync tokens with deletion markers, contact group filters and separate search methods for contacts, other contacts and the directory (20). google.rpc ErrorInfo reasons such as EXPIRED_SYNC_TOKEN, though most errors are generic Google codes (15 of 20). ETags guard updates and the MCP tools carry readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but createContact has no idempotency key, so a retried create can duplicate (14 of 20). Official clients in many languages, but personFields is required on most reads (12 of 15).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):\n\n- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.\n\nModels are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.\n\n## 5. Security \u0026 auth, 86 out of 100, up to 2.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 86: OAuth 2.0 with 12 scopes, separating read-only contacts, other contacts, the directory and individual profile fields from full contacts access (30). Read-only scopes exist for every read path and the MCP server is read-only by design, but nothing in the REST API confirms a delete (17 of 20). The MCP guide warns about indirect prompt injection and points to Model Armor, and each tool description forbids passing results to another tool without the user's confirmation (13 of 15). The Cloud console shows traffic and errors per method, with no per-call log for the operator (8 of 15). Valid security.txt to 2030 with the Google VRP. We didn't recheck whether Contacts is named in the Workspace SOC 2 scope this run (18 of 20).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):\n\n- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.\n\nModels are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.\n\n## 6. Transparency \u0026 trust, 71 out of 100, up to 2.5 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 57, provenance 84.\n\nWhy it scored 71: Closed service under the Google APIs Terms of Service, with Apache-2.0 client libraries (15). Google's privacy policy and the API Services User Data Policy cover the data, but we found no retention statement specific to the People API (18 of 30). A dated migration guide from the old Contacts API and dated release notes. No People-specific deprecation policy found (12 of 20). Workspace sub-processors are published for tenants, which we didn't recheck for this API (12 of 20).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):\n\n- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).\n\nThe other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.\n\nProvenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):\n\n- Terms of service: read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points (7.1 of 10)\n- Privacy policy: read, states 7 of the 8 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points (7.3 of 10)\n- Status page: not found (0 of 10)\n\n## 7. Maintenance \u0026 community, 83 out of 100, up to 1.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 83: Discovery revision 20261012 and @googleapis/people 12.0.1 on 24 September 2026 (30). Client releases 11.0.0 (11 September), 12.0.0 (14 September) and 12.0.1 (24 September), all within 90 days (20). Public issue tracker, Stack Overflow tag and a release notes feed, though the notes are sparse (10 of 15). Current official client libraries (15). Generated clients rebuilt by CI in google-api-nodejs-client (8 of 10).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):\n\n- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.\n\nModels are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.\n\n## What we couldn't check\n\nWhat we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.\n\n- unchecked: the default quota numbers per category, which are shown only in the Cloud console\n- unchecked: whether contacts scopes count as sensitive or restricted for app verification this run\n- unchecked: whether Google Contacts is named in the Workspace SOC 2 scope\n- The release notes list nothing for the API between 22 April and 14 October 2026, though the discovery document and clients changed\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- No status page covers Contacts or the People API\n- Quota numbers aren't published in the docs, only quota categories and costs\n- searchContacts needs a warmup request and writes take minutes to reach sync\n- createContact has no idempotency key\n- The MCP server is a developer preview behind a programme sign-up\n\n## What costs an agent a turn today\n\nThe notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.\n\n- Send an empty searchContacts query first, wait a few seconds, then search\n- Always pass personFields, such as names,emailAddresses,phoneNumbers, or the call fails\n- Store nextSyncToken and do a full sync when you get EXPIRED_SYNC_TOKEN\n- Send writes for one user one at a time and include the etag on updates\n- Ask for contacts.readonly unless the task must create or change contacts\n\n## When it's done\n\nSend what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `\"kind\": \"dispute\"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.\n",
    "grade": "B",
    "score": 65.2,
    "assessed": "2026-10-14",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 30,
        "maxGain": 14,
        "reason": "Graded with the hosted lines on the REST API. No status page covers the People API, since the Google Workspace Status Dashboard lists 37 products and Contacts isn't one of them (0). No readable incident history (5). Quota categories and per-method costs are documented, but the numbers sit in the Cloud console rather than the docs (5 of 15). A fixed full-sync quota that returns 429, ETags on contact updates, and guidance to send mutate requests for one user one at a time. No backoff formula was found on the People pages (10 of 15). No SLA for the API found (0). The REST API is v1 and generally available. The MCP server is a developer preview (10).",
        "checklist": [
          "Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.",
          "- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.",
          "Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.",
          "- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.",
          "Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability"
      },
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 35,
        "maxGain": 8.1,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). No charge was found, but there is no published per-unit price because the API isn't sold, and quota numbers aren't on the docs, which we read the same way as the Google Calendar listing (15). Free with a Google account and no card (20). A person creates a Cloud project, an OAuth consent screen and an OAuth client (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).",
          "- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).",
          "Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.",
          "Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments"
      },
      {
        "key": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 79,
        "maxGain": 3.4,
        "reason": "A Google discovery document at revision 20261012, which is a machine-readable contract with typed schemas (25). developers.google.com/llms.txt returned 404 (0). Reference pages say what each method does and carry warnings that change how an agent calls it, such as the warmup search and sequential writes, and the MCP tool descriptions say when to stop and ask the user (18). Typed parameters with enums such as sources and sortOrder, and personFields is required where it matters (13). Examples in several languages per guide and a documented EXPIRED_SYNC_TOKEN reason, but no single error catalogue for the API (11 of 15). v1 in the path and a release notes page with a feed, though its only 2026 entry is 22 April (12 of 15).",
        "checklist": [
          "APIs and MCP servers.",
          "- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.",
          "Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema"
      },
      {
        "key": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 83,
        "maxGain": 2.8,
        "reason": "personFields field masks and pageSize up to 1,000 on connections, with MCP search capped at 30 results (22). Page tokens, sync tokens with deletion markers, contact group filters and separate search methods for contacts, other contacts and the directory (20). google.rpc ErrorInfo reasons such as EXPIRED_SYNC_TOKEN, though most errors are generic Google codes (15 of 20). ETags guard updates and the MCP tools carry readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but createContact has no idempotency key, so a retried create can duplicate (14 of 20). Official clients in many languages, but personFields is required on most reads (12 of 15).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.",
          "Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics"
      },
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 86,
        "maxGain": 2.5,
        "reason": "OAuth 2.0 with 12 scopes, separating read-only contacts, other contacts, the directory and individual profile fields from full contacts access (30). Read-only scopes exist for every read path and the MCP server is read-only by design, but nothing in the REST API confirms a delete (17 of 20). The MCP guide warns about indirect prompt injection and points to Model Armor, and each tool description forbids passing results to another tool without the user's confirmation (13 of 15). The Cloud console shows traffic and errors per method, with no per-call log for the operator (8 of 15). Valid security.txt to 2030 with the Google VRP. We didn't recheck whether Contacts is named in the Workspace SOC 2 scope this run (18 of 20).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.",
          "Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security"
      },
      {
        "key": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 71,
        "maxGain": 2.5,
        "reason": "Closed service under the Google APIs Terms of Service, with Apache-2.0 client libraries (15). Google's privacy policy and the API Services User Data Policy cover the data, but we found no retention statement specific to the People API (18 of 30). A dated migration guide from the old Contacts API and dated release notes. No People-specific deprecation policy found (12 of 20). Workspace sub-processors are published for tenants, which we didn't recheck for this API (12 of 20).",
        "blend": "editorial 57, provenance 84",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).",
          "The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency"
      },
      {
        "key": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 83,
        "maxGain": 1.5,
        "reason": "Discovery revision 20261012 and @googleapis/people 12.0.1 on 24 September 2026 (30). Client releases 11.0.0 (11 September), 12.0.0 (14 September) and 12.0.1 (24 September), all within 90 days (20). Public issue tracker, Stack Overflow tag and a release notes feed, though the notes are sparse (10 of 15). Current official client libraries (15). Generated clients rebuilt by CI in google-api-nodejs-client (8 of 10).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.",
          "Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance"
      }
    ],
    "provenance": [
      {
        "label": "Terms of service",
        "value": "read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points",
        "points": 7.1,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Privacy policy",
        "value": "read, states 7 of the 8 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points",
        "points": 7.3,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Status page",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "unchecked: the default quota numbers per category, which are shown only in the Cloud console",
      "unchecked: whether contacts scopes count as sensitive or restricted for app verification this run",
      "unchecked: whether Google Contacts is named in the Workspace SOC 2 scope",
      "The release notes list nothing for the API between 22 April and 14 October 2026, though the discovery document and clients changed"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "No status page covers Contacts or the People API",
      "Quota numbers aren't published in the docs, only quota categories and costs",
      "searchContacts needs a warmup request and writes take minutes to reach sync",
      "createContact has no idempotency key",
      "The MCP server is a developer preview behind a programme sign-up"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Send an empty searchContacts query first, wait a few seconds, then search",
      "Always pass personFields, such as names,emailAddresses,phoneNumbers, or the call fails",
      "Store nextSyncToken and do a full sync when you get EXPIRED_SYNC_TOKEN",
      "Send writes for one user one at a time and include the etag on updates",
      "Ask for contacts.readonly unless the task must create or change contacts"
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-14",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.4",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  }
}