Get contact list metadata such as ID, name, and URL by supplying its contact list ID.
Read a contact list's metadata (ID, name and URL) by ID. This endpoint does not return participants; use list_contact_lists_for_contact for a contact's memberships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_list_id | Yes | Superchat contact list ID, for example one returned by list_contact_lists. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it does not return participants, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the returned metadata fields (ID, name, URL). No contradiction exists.
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 concise sentences. The first states the core action and return content; the second immediately clarifies a potential confusion by naming the alternative. No filler, information is front-loaded.
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 get-by-ID tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and what it does not return. No output schema exists, but the description's mention of ID, name, and URL suffices. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
The schema description covers 100% of the parameter, and the single parameter contact_list_id is well-documented with a pattern and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('contact list's metadata'), and the selection mechanism ('by ID'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_contact_lists_for_contact by noting it does not return participants, which differentiates it from a sibling that might otherwise be confused.
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 provides an explicit when-not: 'use list_contact_lists_for_contact for a contact's memberships.' This gives the agent a clear alternative for a specific scenario, and the naming context implies this tool is for retrieving a single list's metadata by ID versus listing all lists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.