List CRM contacts and filter by name, nickname, archived status, or relationship type to quickly find the right person.
List people in your CRM, optionally filtered by search or relationship type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Search by name or nickname | |
| archived | No | "true" for archived only, "all" for both, omit for non-archived only | |
| relationshipTypeId | No | Filter by relationship type ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose the default archived behavior (omitted means non-archived only), pagination, or result semantics. This is a meaningful gap for a data-retrieval tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then states the optional filters compactly and readably.
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?
This is a simple list operation with no required parameters and a schema covering all parameters, so the description is close to adequate. However, it leaves out the archived filter and offers no guidance on result scope or defaults, leaving some ambiguity for agents.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description restates 'search' and 'relationship type' but adds no extra meaning and does not mention the `archived` parameter or its default behavior.
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 clear action ('List'), a specific resource ('people in your CRM'), and two optional filters ('search or relationship type'). However, it omits the archived filter and does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling `list_friends` tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_friends` or `create_person`. No context, conditions, or exclusions are provided to help an agent choose it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.