marketsharp-mcp

marketsharp_contacts_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find MarketSharp contacts by name, business, email, phone, or address to locate CRM records; requires an Employee ID on the connection and uses that employee's permissions.

Instructions

Find contacts by name, business, email, phone or address (MarketSharp QuickFind). Needs an Employee ID on the connection, and runs with that employee's MarketSharp permissions.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "marketsharp_contacts_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	No	ZIP code.
`city`	No	City.
`state`	No	State, e.g. MI.
`last_name`	No	Last name, or the start of it.
`first_name`	No	First name, or the start of it.
`phone_number`	No	Phone number, digits only is fine.
`business_name`	No	Business name.
`email_address`	No	Email address.
`numberOfRecords`	No	Most records to return (default 25).
`address_line_one`	No	Street address line 1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the connection must carry an Employee ID and results are scoped by that employee's MarketSharp permissions — a prerequisite an agent cannot learn from structured fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool finds, followed by the connection prerequisite. No filler, though a clause on criterion requirements would be worth the space.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The auth/permission prerequisite is a valuable addition, and no output schema exists so return formatting needn't be described. However, with zero required parameters it never says what happens when no criteria are supplied (error versus unfiltered dump), which matters for a search tool an agent may call with an empty object.

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 100%, so each of the ten parameters is already documented in-schema. The description echoes the same field set without adding format rules, prefix-matching behavior, or how multiple criteria combine, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find contacts") and enumerates the searchable fields, plus names the underlying capability (QuickFind). It does not explicitly contrast with marketsharp_contacts_list or marketsharp_contacts_get, so an agent must infer that this is the criteria-driven variant.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the field list — use it when you have identifying attributes rather than an ID. There is no explicit when-to-use versus marketsharp_contacts_list or marketsharp_search_global, and no statement about whether at least one criterion is required.

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