search_contactsFind contacts in your Zero account by providing up to 10 names or email addresses. Results appear in query order.
Search the signed-in user's Zero contacts by up to 10 names or email addresses. Results stay in query order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| queries | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: results preserve the order of the input queries. It does not disclose return shape or match behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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?
Two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and scope; the second adds a valuable ordering guarantee. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only search tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential details: scope, accepted query values, max input count, and result ordering. It omits output shape and pagination behavior, but the absence of an output schema makes that a modest gap rather than a critical one.
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 does clarify the main 'queries' parameter by explaining that entries are names or email addresses and limited to 10. However, it does not explain 'page' or 'limit' semantics beyond what the schema already shows with defaults and bounds.
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?
Description states a specific action ('Search'), a precise resource ('the signed-in user's Zero contacts'), and the exact query format (up to 10 names or email addresses). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_zero or add_contact by scoping to contacts and limiting input.
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 when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to look up a signed-in user's contacts by names or emails. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when a broader Zero search or a different resource type is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.