List saved contacts in a specific lead list with ID, name, headline, company, profile URL, gender, email and location. For invitation, connection or reply state use list_campaign_queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 50, max 200) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default 0) | |
| list_id | Yes | UUID of the lead list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations by specifying the scoped resource (a specific lead list) and the exact return fields. No behavioral contradiction exists, though it does not discuss pagination behavior or ordering.
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 focused sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the alternative routing appears immediately after, making the purpose and usage easy to parse.
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?
The tool has only one required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema. The description fully compensates for the missing output schema by listing the returned fields, while the input schema covers parameters and the annotations cover safety. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only reinforces that list_id refers to a specific lead list and does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List saved contacts in a specific lead list," then enumerates the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from the related list_campaign_queue by explicitly stating the alternative use case for invitation, connection, or reply state.
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 clearly states when to use this tool (for saved contacts in a lead list) and when not to use it, directing the agent to list_campaign_queue for invitation, connection, or reply state. This explicit alternative and exclusion leaves no ambiguity.
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.
