Search across all entity types (contacts, notes, activities, life events, gifts, tasks, reminders, debts, relationships, contact methods, addresses, custom fields) in a single query. Returns grouped results by entity type with snippets and contact context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term | |
| entity_types | No | Optional: filter to specific entity types (default: all types) | |
| limit_per_type | No | Max results per entity type (default: 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (grouped results by entity type, snippets, contact context), which is valuable. It does not mention pagination, defaults, or side effects, but for a read-only search tool, the description is reasonably transparent.
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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists scope and output highlights. It is concise with no filler, earning a top score for efficiency.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description effectively communicates the return format and scope. It does not mention default parameter values, but those are covered in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about the query scope ('in a single query') but does not provide additional meaning for the entity_types or limit_per_type parameters beyond what the schema states. Thus a 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('all entity types'), and explicitly lists the entity types covered. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list/manage tools that focus on single entity types, making the tool's cross-entity purpose unambiguous.
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 cross-entity search in a single query, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools like contact_list or note_list for single-type searches. The guidance is strong but not exhaustive.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct by entity, but contact_get and contact_timeline overlap significantly, and debt_manage's action='list' duplicates what other entities do with a dedicated list tool. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity, though.
Tool names are mostly snake_case and readable, but they mix conventions: noun_verb (contact_create), verb_noun (batch_create_activities), and descriptive phrases (contacts_needing_attention). The noun_manage pattern is dominant, but the lack of uniformity makes the naming less predictable.
With 42 tools, the surface is very large, even for a full-featured CRM. Many tools bundle multiple actions, but the sheer number forces an agent to consider many options, increasing selection difficulty and cognitive load.
The server provides comprehensive CRM coverage: contacts, activities, notes, tasks, reminders, gifts, debts, relationships, tags, custom fields, notifications, settings, and exports. It supports batch operations, duplicate detection, merge, and special queries, leaving few if any obvious gaps.