show_projectShow one REACH project and a small summary of its lists.
Use this tool when you already know the project ID and need counts plus a recent-list preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Positive integer project ID (must be ≥ 1) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | ||
| list_summary | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already confirm read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds detail about the output nature ('small summary', 'counts', 'recent-list preview'), giving further clarity without contradicting 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 concise, using two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and directly addresses the tool's purpose and usage.
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?
While an output schema exists (so return values need not be detailed), the description gives sufficient context about what the summary contains ('counts', 'recent-list preview'). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's functional scope, though edge cases like error handling are not mentioned.
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 only parameter project_id is fully described in the schema with type and constraints. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond 'Positive integer project ID', 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's function: showing one REACH project and a summary of its lists. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects by specifying a single project and the inclusion of list summaries.
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?
Explicit usage condition is given: 'Use this tool when you already know the project ID and need counts plus a recent-list preview.' This clearly indicates when to choose this tool over alternatives.
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.