List the signed-in user's care-network contacts (doctors, therapists, trainers, family, …). Optionally filtered by organization id.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "vitalli_list_contacts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful scoping fact that results are limited to the signed-in user's network, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering.
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 compact clauses, with the core purpose front-loaded and the filter caveat trailing. No wasted words.
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 single-optional-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what it returns at a category level and how to narrow it. Only return shape and pagination behavior are unaddressed.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain that orgId is an optional organization-id filter. It does not mention the parameter name or UUID format, leaving a small gap against the schema's strict format/pattern.
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 and resource ('List ... care-network contacts') and enumerates the domain objects (doctors, therapists, trainers, family), which lets an agent distinguish it from vitalli_get_contact or vitalli_create_contact without reading the schema.
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 through 'the signed-in user's' scoping and the optional org filter, but never states when to choose this over vitalli_get_contact for a single contact or vitalli_list_organizations. The condition for using the filter is only 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.