JobNimbus MCP Server

by drummouse

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

jn_list_contacts

Retrieve and filter contacts from JobNimbus by name, email, or status. Supports pagination and sorting.

Instructions

List or search contacts in JobNimbus.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "jn_list_contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from`	No
`size`	No
`sort_field`	No		date_created
`filter_name`	No	Partial match on display name
`filter_email`	No	Exact match on email
`filter_status`	No	Exact match on status name
`sort_direction`	No		desc

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list or search' without mentioning that the operation is read-only, paginated, or how filtering works. Important traits like rate limits or authentication needs are omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks necessary detail, making it insufficiently informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination behavior, return structure, or filtering semantics, which are critical for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, failing to compensate for undocumented parameters like 'from', 'size', or 'sort_field'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists or searches contacts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on other resources like jobs or notes. However, it does not specify scope or uniqueness beyond the generic verb-resource pair.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jn_get_contact for a single contact or other list tools. The description lacks context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.