show_listShow one REACH list and a summary of its latest job.
Use this tool when you already know the list ID and need full metadata plus job status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | Positive integer list ID (must be ≥ 1) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | ||
| job_summary | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the tool returns both full list metadata and a summary of the latest job, which goes beyond the static annotations.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second provides the primary usage condition, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
This is a simple tool with only one required parameter, robust annotations, and an output schema present. The description adequately covers purpose, scope, and when to use it without needing further elaboration on return values, which are presumably documented in the output schema.
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?
The input schema already fully describes list_id as a positive integer with a minimum of 1, so schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions needing to already know the list ID, but adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool shows one REACH list plus a summary of its latest job, and reinforces that it returns full metadata and job status. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_lists and job_status by specifying the single-list scope and combined metadata/status purpose.
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 explicitly says to use this tool when the list ID is already known and full metadata plus job status is needed. It provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: list generation (B2B vs B2C), enrichment (contact, demographic, firmographic, C2B, IP-to-domain), project/list management, job lifecycle, and validation. No two tools appear to do the same thing, so an agent can reliably select the correct one.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern consistently, using verbs like list, show, create, preview, search, validate, append, and estimate. Even the segmented append tools (c2b_append, contact_append, demographic_append, firmographic_append, ip_to_domain_append) follow the same pattern with clear noun modifiers. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 19 tools, this is on the higher side but still well-scoped for a data enrichment and list-building platform. The count covers distinct functional areas (audience estimation, enrichment, job/project management, list inspection, documentation) without unnecessary bloat. It feels slightly heavy but each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the core workflows: estimating audiences, creating and monitoring jobs, managing projects and lists, and enriching records with various data types. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit delete/update operations for projects or lists, and no direct file download for list contents (though preview_list and show_list provide partial coverage). These are non-blocking gaps that agents can work around.