Find contacts by name, company, email, phone or city using case-insensitive substring matching. Returns up to a set limit of results.
Find contacts by name, company, email, phone or city (case-insensitive substring). Returns up to limit (max 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds matching semantics (case-insensitive substring) and a hard result cap, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior on zero matches.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the searchable-field list, no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers matching behavior and the result cap. Minor gaps (result ordering, empty-match behavior) remain for a search tool but are not blocking.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load — and it does: it tells the agent what query matches against and that limit is capped at 50. Only the default of 10 is left to the schema.
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 (Find) and resource (contacts) plus the searchable fields (name, company, email, phone, city). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_contact or list_tasks, though it never explicitly frames itself as the attribute-based alternative to get_contact.
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?
The listed searchable fields imply the usage context (you have an attribute, not an ID), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the obvious alternative get_contact is never named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.