List saved company lists with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of lists to return (1–100, default 20) | |
| offset | No | Number of lists to skip for pagination (default 0) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds pagination behavior, which is not covered by the annotations. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It delivers the core purpose and key behavioral detail (pagination) efficiently.
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 list-with-pagination tool, the description is complete. Annotations cover safety profile, schema covers parameter details, and the purpose is clear. With no output schema, the implied return of company lists is sufficient.
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?
The input schema fully describes both limit and offset with ranges and defaults, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description's mention of pagination aligns with the schema but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the action (List) and resource (saved company lists), and mentions pagination. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get, search, and count_preview by implying a full enumeration.
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 gives a clear purpose but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as company_lists-search or company_lists-get. Usage context is implied by the name and action, but there are no explicit when/when-not or alternative references.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.
