Search customers and suppliers by name or email within a company, with pagination controls for browsing results.
Søk i kunder og leverandører på navn eller e-post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| No | |||
| page_size | No | ||
| company_slug | 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: no mention of pagination semantics (page defaults to 0, page_size to 100), no note on result volume, and no statement about how empty filters behave.
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 well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is efficient but so terse that conciseness shades into under-specification for a five-parameter tool.
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?
With five parameters, zero schema description coverage, no output schema and a required company_slug, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how to page through results or what the required company scoping parameter is for.
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 carries the full burden, yet it only names two of five parameters (name, email) with no format guidance. company_slug, page and page_size – including the fact that company_slug is required – are completely unaddressed.
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 (Søk/search) and resource (kunder og leverandører = customers and suppliers) plus the searchable fields (navn, e-post). This distinguishes it from fiken_get_contact, which retrieves a single contact. However, the tool name says 'list_contacts' while the description says 'search', and the description never mentions the company_slug scoping that dominates the schema.
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 fiken_get_contact or the other list tools. It also omits that name/email default to empty strings, meaning an unfiltered call returns all contacts – a crucial usage distinction the agent must infer from the schema defaults alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.