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). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that results come back as a paged collection and can be cursor-filtered, which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but it omits defaults (page size, direction) and any return-shape detail.
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?
A single well-structured sentence front-loads the resource and collection behavior. The trailing 'SimpleTexting REST: GET /contacts' adds marginal value but is short enough not to hurt.
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?
For a zero-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose, paging, and filters adequately. With no output schema, a brief note on the returned contact shape would have closed the remaining gap.
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 the schema already documents page, size, since, and direction. The description only restates that since and direction are optional filters and adds no syntax, format, or default-value information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (the account's contacts) plus the collection shape (paged) and filter dimensions. It distinguishes the tool from get_contact by making clear this returns a collection, though it never names a sibling 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 implied by the resource name (use this to enumerate contacts) but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_contact, no mention of when filtering is appropriate, and no exclusions. Nothing actively misleads, but the agent must infer the 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.