people_search_contactsSearch your Google contacts by name, email, phone, or organization using prefix matching to quickly find people and contact details.
Search the user's contacts by name, email, phone, or organization (prefix match).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the valuable 'prefix match' behavior, which the schema does not convey, but says nothing about empty queries, result ordering, or how max_results affects the response.
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 tight sentence with the core scope and match semantics front-loaded, no filler. It is arguably a bit too terse given the undocumented max_results parameter, but structurally clean.
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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing for a search tool: what max_results limits, whether empty results return an empty list, and whether results are ranked by relevance or prefix strength.
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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that the query matches name, email, phone, or organization and that matching is prefix-based, but leaves max_results (including its default of 10) unexplained, so half the parameters remain undefined.
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 ('Search the user's contacts') and names the searchable fields plus the match semantics (prefix match). It implicitly separates itself from people_search_other_contacts by scoping to 'the user's contacts', but does not name that 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus people_list_connections, people_get_person, or people_search_other_contacts, and no note on exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Search'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.