virtuous_search_contactsFind contacts whose name, email, phone or address fully or partially matches a search string. Returns id, name, contact type, email, phone and address per match. Virtuous: POST /api/Contact/Search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Records to skip (default 0). | |
| take | No | Records to return, 1-100 (default 10). | |
| search | Yes | Text to match, e.g. "Weyland" or an email address. |
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?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations: it discloses that matching is 'fully or partially' (substring/LIKE semantics) and enumerates the fields returned per match, which helps the agent reason about result shape.
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 compact sentences that front-load the query semantics and then the return fields. The trailing 'Virtuous: POST /api/Contact/Search' is slightly noisy for an agent but is short and grounded in the real endpoint.
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 read-only, three-parameter search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, and returned fields. The main gap is sibling differentiation and pagination behavior, which the skip/take params partly cover.
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 all three parameters (search, skip, take) are already documented, including defaults and ranges. The description only adds that the search string matches against multiple fields, which is mild added meaning; 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find contacts') and enumerates the matched fields (name, email, phone, address), which is more informative than the title alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like virtuous_find_contact or virtuous_search, so an agent cannot confidently route between them from this text.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative despite several overlapping siblings (virtuous_find_contact, virtuous_search, virtuous_query). The partial-match behavior implies a lookup scenario but the agent must infer when this tool is preferable.
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.