List records of an object with keyset pagination. Optional filters vary by object (e.g. contact: email/company_id/type; deal: pipeline/stage/company_id; activity: contact_id/deal_id/type).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| filter | No | object-specific filters | |
| object | Yes | Which core object. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it uses keyset pagination and that filters vary by object, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose response format, limit/cursor semantics, or error handling, so the additional behavioral detail is limited.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and pagination method, while the second provides brief, relevant examples. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 nested filter object and absence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, pagination, and filter examples, but omits details like response shape, default or maximum limit, cursor usage specifics, or behavior for invalid filter keys. It is adequate but has noticeable gaps for a tool of this complexity.
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 only 50% with 'filter' described as 'object-specific filters' and no descriptions for 'limit' and 'cursor'. The description compensates by listing concrete filter keys for contact, deal, and activity, substantially clarifying the filter parameter. 'Keyset pagination' also implies the roles of limit and cursor, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 it lists records of an object with keyset pagination, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource. It provides concrete filter examples for different objects, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like relm_get or relm_search, so it falls short of a 5.
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 for paginated listing with object-specific filters, and gives examples for contact, deal, and activity. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over relm_get or relm_search, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., create_automation, create_pipeline, create_template), and potential overlaps like batch vs create or log_activity vs create are clearly differentiated in descriptions. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All 41 tools follow the relm_<verb>_<noun> pattern in snake_case, with conventional verbs like create, get, list, delete, manage, and restore. Minor plural/singular differences (list_automations vs get_automation) follow standard resource-naming practices and do not break consistency.
At 41 tools, the set is far beyond the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate. While the CRM domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., generic get/list by resource type) without losing clarity.
The tool set covers the full record lifecycle (CRUD, restore, batch, search) plus schema management, pipelines, stages, automations, sequences, templates, webhooks, channels, and usage. However, automations, sequences, and templates lack update operations—requiring delete-and-recreate workarounds—which is a minor but notable gap.
