Find LimPhoneContact records - pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Fetch one record by id; omit to query many | |
| skip | No | Records to skip before the first result; 0 or more. | |
| sort | No | Sort field; '-' prefix for descending | |
| limit | No | 1-500; defaults to 50. Out-of-range values are clamped. | |
| query | No | MongoDB-style filter, e.g. {"status": "active"} | |
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds dual-mode behavioral context (single vs filtered list), but omits any return/result shape or note on the default/clamping behavior that the schema mentions. Adds modest value given annotations carry the safety burden.
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 the resource first and the mode rule after; zero waste. Slightly terse given the six parameters it governs, but well-structured.
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 6-parameter, read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers the core dual-mode behavior but is thin on pagination, sort, and fields semantics, relying on the schema. Adequate but not complete.
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 83%, above the 80% threshold, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the id/query split already documented in the schema's 'id' parameter description, adding little beyond what structured fields provide.
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 ('Find') and resource ('LimPhoneContact records') and clarifies the two operating modes. It does not name or contrast alternatives, but the resource name itself distinguishes it from the ~45 sibling query_lim* tools.
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?
Distinguishes the two modes (pass id for one, query for a list), which is useful intra-tool guidance. However it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites, leaving usage implied.
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.