Search Client 360 CRM records by name, email, company, or lifecycle status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search term for name, email, or company | |
| status | No | Filter by lifecycle status (e.g. active, lead, churned) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search but does not disclose result limits, pagination, matching behavior, permissions, or what the response contains.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter search tool.
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 two-parameter search with complete schema descriptions, the core purpose is covered. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral details about results and limits 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description repeats the searchable fields without adding syntax, matching rules, or examples beyond what the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: search Client 360 CRM records, with the searchable fields named. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_client lookup tool.
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 by listing searchable fields such as name, email, company, and lifecycle status. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this search versus get_client, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
