get_listGet a Specific List - Retrieve details of a specific contact list. The response includes a fields array — the list's columns in snake_case (e.g. first_name, email, lead_score).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The list ID | |
| workspace_id | No | Workspace ID this action applies to. When omitted, the current or default workspace is used. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | The raw result returned by the SalesBlink tool. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a note about the `fields` array and its snake_case naming, which is useful context, but since an output schema exists this partially duplicates structured data.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. The first sentence restates the title before delivering the actual verb phrase, a minor redundancy.
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?
A simple read-only tool with two fully documented parameters, annotations, and an output schema. The description covers purpose and hints at the response shape, leaving nothing an agent needs to call 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 both `id` and `workspace_id` are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it never mentions the required list identifier or the workspace scoping behavior.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve details of a specific contact list.' The word 'specific' implicitly distinguishes it from get_all_lists, but that sibling is never named explicitly.
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 only implied by 'specific list' — an agent can infer this is the single-record counterpart to get_all_lists, but the description never states when to choose one over the other or any prerequisites.
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.