Retrieve CRM records using complex logical filters, sorting, and pagination. Specify filter strings like 'accountname contains test' to target precise data.
Execute complex search queries with logical filters. Supports pageNumber, pageSize, and filter strings (e.g., 'accountname contains "test"').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| objectType | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the filter string syntax with the 'contains' example and notes pagination support. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, what errors may occur, or any rate limits or side effects.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a concrete example. It is lean with no fluff, though it does repeat some parameter names already visible in the schema.
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?
Given a nested input schema, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin to be self-sufficient. An agent is left unsure what objectType should contain, how orderby behaves, and what a successful result looks like.
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 adds meaningful detail for filter syntax and mentions pageNumber/pageSize, but it omits the required objectType parameter entirely and does not explain orderby or how the nested query object should be structured.
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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and identifies a clear capability: complex search queries with logical filters and a concrete filter example. However, it never names the target resource ('objects', 'records', etc.) and does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_objects or get_related_records, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'complex search queries' implies a niche, but the description never mentions get_objects, get_related_records, or conditions for choosing one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.