List contacts in the connected organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | The cursor from the previous page of THIS same query. It is only valid while the filters stay identical — if you change, add, or drop a filter, start over with no cursor. Reusing one across a filter change returns INVALID_CURSOR. | |
| search | No | ||
| groupId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| success | 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 and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default sorting, or that it supports filters via parameters. It adds nothing beyond what annotations already state.
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 wasted words, making it efficient. However, it is also under-specified, but for conciseness it earns a 4 since it is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and a sibling tool 'search_contacts', the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention that it supports filtering or pagination, and it doesn't clarify the difference from search_contacts. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks essential context for correct usage.
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 only 20% (only the cursor parameter has a description in the schema). The tool description does not describe any of the parameters (tags, limit, search, groupId), so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. It adds no meaning 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'contacts' within the connected organization, giving a specific action and scope. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_contacts', which also deals with contacts, so it lacks the distinction needed to choose between them.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like search_contacts or list_contact_groups. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or context about when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.
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.