Skip to main content
Glama

Close List Contacts

close_list_contacts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List contacts (people) in Close. Returns a data array of contacts with id, lead_id, name, title, emails, and phones, plus has_more / total_results. Optionally filter to one lead with lead_id. Page with _limit / _skip.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_skipNoNumber of results to skip for pagination (default 0)
_limitNoResults per page (default 100, max 200)
_apiKeyYesClose API key
lead_idNoOptional lead ID to filter contacts to a single lead

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds beyond that by detailing the return structure (data array with fields, pagination metadata), which is valuable for understanding output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: two front-loaded sentences covering action, return structure, filtering, and pagination. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return format including field names and pagination fields. It covers necessary parameters and usage context, making it complete for a list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for all 4 parameters. Description reiterates lead_id and pagination parameters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'List contacts (people) in Close' and specifies return fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like close_get_lead and close_list_activities by naming the resource and providing specific output details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context for usage: filtering by lead_id and pagination with _limit/_skip. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for proper invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple Pipeworx tools overlap significantly (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all query similar data). Close CRM tools are distinct but the overall set mixes two domains, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snakes (close_get_lead), lowercase (ask_pipeworx), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the entire set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a focused server. The combination of Close CRM and Pipeworx data services creates scope creep; many tools could be separate servers.

Completeness3/5

Pipeworx tools offer extensive data coverage, but Close CRM lacks update/delete operations for leads, contacts, and opportunities, leaving basic CRUD gaps.