List assets linked to a specific contact, sorted by name and paginated at 50 per page. Use the contact ID to retrieve associated hardware and services.
List the assets linked to one contact, sorted by name. 50 per page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| contact_id | Yes | Contact ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the sort order ('sorted by name') and page size ('50 per page'), which are real behavioral facts. However, it does not state the return format, whether more pages exist, or any read-only/permission traits.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the two practical constraints. No filler or repetition.
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 two-parameter list tool this covers purpose, sorting, and pagination adequately. But with no annotations and no output schema, it omits any statement of what a returned asset contains or whether pagination has a terminal page, leaving some gaps.
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% so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by specifying the page size (50 per page) and the sort key, which the schema does not mention.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the assets linked to one contact') plus scope (single contact), sort order, and page size. This inherently distinguishes it from assets_list, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 'linked to one contact' scope implies when this is appropriate versus a general asset listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.