simpletexting_list_contactsList the account's contacts as a paged collection, optionally filtered by a since cursor and sort direction. SimpleTexting REST: GET /contacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Zero-based page number. | |
| size | No | Page size (1-100). | |
| since | No | Return contacts created/updated since this cursor or timestamp. | |
| direction | No | Sort direction (e.g. ASC | DESC). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds value beyond readOnlyHint by disclosing pagination and filtering behavior. No contradictions with annotations. Briefly mentions REST source for traceability.
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 purpose and key features, no extraneous content. Efficient and clear.
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 simple list operation with no output schema, description covers pagination, filtering, and REST endpoint adequately. Could optionally mention response structure but not required.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds minimal extra context (cursor/timestamp for 'since', example values for 'direction'), but not significantly beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'list the account's contacts' and specifies paged collection with optional filtering. Differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_contact' (single) and 'list_campaigns' (different resource).
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?
Description implies usage for listing contacts with pagination and filtering, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like 'get_contact' or other list tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: evaluate vs send, get vs list for campaigns/contacts/media/messages, and update for contacts. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent 'simpletexting_verb_noun' pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are imperative (evaluate, get, list, send, update) and nouns use singular for get and plural for list, as expected.
11 tools is well-scoped for a messaging API, covering the core operations without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose and earns its place.
Significant gaps exist: no create or delete for contacts, campaigns, or media; no delete for messages. The surface is read-heavy with only send and update as write operations, limiting full lifecycle management.