Search or list contacts in the DealDesk customer directory, with optional query, result limit, and project ID to scope results across authorized projects.
Search or list customer-directory contacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| projectId | No | DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionPrevious value: -"DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project)"New value: +"DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectId"
-]New value: +[]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authorization scope, pagination, default result size, or read-only semantics. The only auth-relevant text (projectId's multi-project requirement) lives in the schema, not the description.
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 with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing guidance rather than being a virtue of economy.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only one-third schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine result shape, auth requirements, or search semantics from what is given.
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 only 33% (just projectId), and the description adds no parameter meaning for 'q' or 'limit'. It neither explains the search matching behavior nor how 'limit' interacts with the maximum of 100.
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 names a specific verb pair ('search or list') and resource ('customer-directory contacts'), which is enough to separate it from list_companies or create_contact. However, it does not articulate the distinction between the search mode and the plain list mode, nor differentiate it from near-neighbors like list_desk_users.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus siblings such as list_companies, get_contact, or the create/patch contact tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the presence of a 'q' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.