List the people who can receive a report about a site (name, email, preferred language, role). These are the ONLY possible recipients: use the contact_id from here when drafting a report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | No | Optional. Without it, every contact in your organizations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and the important constraint that these are the only possible recipients, but it does not mention permissions, pagination, or other operational behavior.
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 short sentences with zero waste, and the key intended use is front-loaded. Every sentence adds actionable information.
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 this simple list tool, the description covers returned fields, recipient scope, and the follow-on use of contact_id. The schema covers the optional site filter, and no output schema exists, so only minor return-shape details are absent.
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 site_id fully, including the no-site behavior. The description implies the site scoping but adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.
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 ('List the people who can receive a report about a site') and clarifies the returned fields. It also distinguishes this tool from report-drafting siblings by telling the agent these are the ONLY possible recipients and to use the contact_id when drafting a report.
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?
It gives clear usage context: use this tool to identify report recipients and obtain contact_id values for drafting a report. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but no obvious sibling alternative for listing recipients exists.
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.
