search-contactsSearch accessible Chatway contacts by name, email address, or phone number. Returns matching contact records but does not search conversation messages. Use get-visitor instead when you already have the contact's UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return, from 1 to 50. | |
| query | Yes | Search term for contact name, email, or phone. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contacts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum results to return."New value: +"Maximum results to return, from 1 to 50."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "contacts": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "email": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "phone": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "widget_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds useful scope information—result set is limited to 'accessible' contacts and excludes message bodies—but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or match semantics (exact vs partial), which annotations can't convey.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler: capability plus scope first, the alternative routing second. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need only cover scope and routing, which it does. The one gap is match behavior—an agent can't tell whether the query is substring, prefix, or fuzzy—which matters for a search tool.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the limit range of 1 to 50. The description's restatement that query matches name, email, or phone duplicates the schema rather than adding format or matching-behavior detail. 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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (contacts) plus the three searchable attributes, and explicitly bounds scope with 'does not search conversation messages'. That scope line separates it cleanly from the sibling search-conversations.
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?
Names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('use get-visitor instead when you already have the contact's UUID'). It does not explicitly route to search-conversations for the message case, though the negative scoping sentence implies that handoff.
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.