mcp-vtenext

search_contatti

Search contacts by name, email, or company in the VTENext CRM system to find and retrieve contact information quickly.

Instructions

Cerca contatti per nome, email o azienda

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search_contatti"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Testo da cercare
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the search functionality but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero waste or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide enough behavioral context. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for proper tool understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'q' has a description). The description adds some value by specifying what fields are searched (name, email, company), which helps understand the 'q' parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Cerca' - Search) and resource ('contatti' - contacts), and specifies the searchable fields (name, email, company). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_opportunita', but the resource type differentiation is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clearly a search tool for contacts, there's no mention of when to use it instead of other search or listing tools, or any prerequisites for its use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server