people_list_other_contactsLists 'Other contacts' that Gmail saves automatically from your email conversations. Use it to retrieve addresses collected outside your main contact list, with paging and result limits.
List 'Other contacts': addresses Gmail saved automatically from conversations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_token | No | ||
| max_results | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what 'Other contacts' actually are, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, which matter for a list call.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the definition trailing as justification. No wasted words, though the colon construction is slightly compressed.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, but for a paginated list tool the description omits everything about paging and limits. Given 0% schema coverage on both parameters, this leaves an agent without enough to call it correctly beyond the defaults.
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 0% for two parameters (page_token, max_results), and the description mentions neither pagination nor a result limit. The description does not compensate for the schema gap at all.
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 and resource ('List Other contacts') and explains what the resource is: addresses Gmail saved automatically from conversations. That distinguishes it from generic contact listing, though it does not explicitly contrast with people_search_other_contacts or people_list_connections.
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 guidance on when to use this versus people_search_other_contacts or people_list_connections. An agent must infer that this is an unfiltered enumeration of auto-saved addresses, but the description never says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.