Search and list customer service contacts by account, name, or email to retrieve relevant records for support.
List contacts for an account or search across all contacts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 25) | |
| query | No | Search by name or email | |
| account_sysid | No | Filter contacts by account sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds value by explaining the search scope distinction (account-filtered vs global), which is not captured in annotations. This is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the complete purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the two usage modes are clearly presented. This is exemplary conciseness.
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 list/search tool with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of return format, but no output schema exists and the purpose is clear. Minor gap: no explicit note that results are paginated with a default limit, though schema covers limit.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described (limit, query, account_sysid). The description adds slight relational context by mapping 'for an account' to account_sysid and 'search across all contacts' to query, but the schema already carries most of the semantic weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool lists contacts and distinguishes between two modes: listing for a specific account via account_sysid or searching across all contacts via query. This is a specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like get_csm_contact (which retrieves a single contact).
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: when you need to list contacts for an account or search across all contacts. It does not name explicit alternatives like get_csm_contact for single-contact lookup, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.