Retrieve saved address book contacts, optionally filtering by name or phone number. Supports pagination with limit and offset for manageable results.
List saved contacts (your address book). Optionally filter with a search term that matches name or phone number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| offset | No | Number of results to skip (for pagination) | |
| search | No | Filter by name or phone number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds only that contacts are an address book and that search spans name/phone; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or result caps beyond the schema.
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 filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the optional filter detail. Every clause earns its place.
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 simple, fully-annotated, zero-required-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. The only gap is the absent relationship to the manage_contact sibling.
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 (limit, offset, search) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description's note that search "matches name or phone number" restates the schema's own wording rather than adding new semantics, 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 and resource ("List saved contacts") and disambiguates the resource with "(your address book)." It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling manage_contact, so an agent must infer the read-vs-write split on its own.
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?
The description explains the optional filter and what it matches, which implies how to use the tool, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to manage_contact or any search alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.