list_contactsRetrieve a paginated list of all CRM contacts for browsing or export. Control results with page and pageSize parameters, or switch to the search endpoint for filtered and sorted queries.
Get Contacts.
Retrieves a paginated list of all contacts.
For more flexible filtering and sorting, use POST /v2/contact/search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (0 is the first page) | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page (1-100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results are paginated and unfiltered — useful but thin; it says nothing about default ordering, total-count fields, or error behavior.
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?
Three short sentences with the core statement first and the alternative last; nothing is padded. Minor waste in the leading 'Get Contacts.' line, which only echoes the title.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs to choose and call it. Only the return-shape hint (no output schema is provided) is missing, which is a small gap.
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 100%, so page and pageSize are already fully documented with defaults, ranges and meaning. The description contributes nothing param-specific beyond the word 'paginated', so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a paginated list of all contacts'), and the word 'all' plus 'paginated' sets the scope apart from filtered siblings. It does not name the alternative tool by name, only by endpoint path, so differentiation is clear but not perfect.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent when to go elsewhere: 'For more flexible filtering and sorting, use POST /v2/contact/search.' The condition is clear, though the agent must infer that this maps to the sibling tool search_contacts rather than a tool it can call by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.