Mondovo

List a site's contacts

list_contacts

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the people in a site's CRM — leads and customers captured from forms, chat and imports. Filter by pipeline status, tags (a contact must carry EVERY tag listed), free-text search across name/email/company, acquisition source or campaign, and a created-at window. Returns full contact records including tags and custom fields, so this is PERSONAL DATA: use it to answer the owner's question and do not copy it into site content or anywhere else. Paginated — check total against limit/offset before concluding you have seen everyone.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	newest (default) or next_appointment — soonest upcoming appointment first, people without one last
`tags`	No
`email`	No
`limit`	No
`phone`	No
`offset`	No
`search`	No
`status`	No
`site_id`	Yes	The site whose contacts to list
`user_goal`	No	Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details.
`appointment`	No	Appointment state: upcoming (booked, still to come), pending (upcoming, waiting for the owner to confirm), needs_time (asked for an appointment, waiting for a time to be picked), had (has had one before)
`created_after`	No
`created_before`	No
`acquisition_source`	No
`acquisition_campaign`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / email

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 320,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / phone

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 40,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / user_goal

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description earns credit for what it adds: a PII handling constraint, disclosure that full records with tags and custom fields are returned, and pagination behavior ('check `total` against `limit`/`offset` before concluding you have seen everyone'). It stops short of stating result caps or rate limits, which would be the remaining behavioral gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences with purpose front-loaded, followed by filtering capability, then the data-handling and pagination caveats. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, return shape and pagination — enough to call it correctly. Minor omissions remain around exact-match parameters and how to discover valid `status`/`tags` values, but nothing that would cause a wrong call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 27%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains that `tags` is AND semantics ('a contact must carry EVERY tag listed'), that `search` spans name/email/company, and that filtering covers pipeline status, acquisition source/campaign and a created-at window. Remaining gaps are `email`/`phone` exact-match behavior and the `user_goal` parameter, which are undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List the people in a site's CRM — leads and customers captured from forms, chat and imports.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_contact (single record), tag_contacts (mutation) and export_contacts_csv (file export) among the many contact-adjacent siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use directive ('use it to answer the owner's question') and a when-not-to ('do not copy it into site content or anywhere else'). It does not name alternative siblings such as get_contact for a single record or list_contact_filter_vocabulary for discovering valid status/tag values, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mondovo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?