Search contacts by email address or name. Returns matching contacts with their tags and subscription status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| query | Yes | Search query (matches against email, first name, last name) | |
| apiKey | No | Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var) | |
| pageSize | No | Results per page (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions return fields but does not disclose pagination behavior or any side effects. The description is basic but not misleading.
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?
Single sentence, no redundant information. Efficiently conveys core functionality.
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?
No output schema exists, so description must indicate return format—it does. However, it omits pagination details (though schema hints at it). Overall adequate for a simple search 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying return fields (tags, subscription status) not present in schema, improving understanding beyond parameter names.
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 clearly states the tool searches contacts by email or name and returns specific fields (tags, subscription status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_contacts by specifying search criteria.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.
