list_visitorsLists visitors who have chatted, most recently seen first, with email, name and conversation count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Matches email or name. | |
| site | No | A site id from list_sites. Runs this call on that website instead of the connection default. | |
| limit | No | Rows to return, newest first. | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip; use next_offset from the previous page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it filters to visitors who have chatted, defines the sort order, and names the returned fields. It stops short of covering pagination behavior, but the schema handles that.
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 definition is a single efficient sentence. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds ordering and return fields without any redundant or filler text.
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?
For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context by naming the fields returned and the order. Parameter documentation and safety are covered by the schema and annotations, leaving only minor room for richer guidance.
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 meaning of q, site, limit, and offset is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what is structured, which meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('visitors'), plus meaningful scope: only visitors who have chatted. It also names the sort order and returned fields, making it easy to distinguish from get_visitor and unrelated list tools.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Lists visitors who have chatted' and the ordering/field details, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as get_visitor. An agent can infer the purpose but must decide on its own when this list view is preferable.
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.