contacts_searchFind Apple Contacts by name, email, phone, or organization. Use this tool to retrieve contact details quickly.
Search Apple Contacts by name, email, phone, or organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term to match against contact fields |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the searchable fields but does not disclose additional behavior such as result limits, case sensitivity, or handling of no matches. Given the annotations cover the read-only aspect, a score of 3 reflects that the description adds modest context beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose and search fields. It might be improved by noting that it returns all matches or the format of results, but the output schema handles that. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter with a description. The tool description does not add any further semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Apple Contacts', and the specific search criteria (name, email, phone, organization). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contacts_get (which likely retrieves a specific contact) and imessage_search (which searches messages).
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 implies the tool is for finding contacts by text, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like contacts_get or how it differs from other search tools. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.