Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Little Green Light MCP Server

Little Green Light MCP Server

by WillHeadlee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

search_constituents

Read-only

Search for constituents in Little Green Light CRM using name, email, phone, or keyword queries.

Instructions

Search for constituents by name, email, phone, or other keyword

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_constituents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYesSearch query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world. Description adds that it searches by name, email, phone, or keyword, which is useful but does not detail pagination or result behavior. Adds some value beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, directly conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could mention what is returned (list of constituents), but the core behavior is clear.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema has 50% coverage (only 'query' described). Description adds meaning by listing specific searchable fields (name, email, phone, keyword), enriching the 'query' parameter. 'limit' is not covered but has a default.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches for constituents by specific fields (name, email, phone, or other keyword). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_constituents' (no search) or 'search_constituents_advanced' (more complex), though not explicitly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'search_constituents_advanced'). While the description implies simple keyword search, it lacks clear usage context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools