List the people in a specific Apple Contacts group, returning read-only summaries with pagination via limit and offset. Use it to review group membership without changing contact data.
Read-only: list summaries of people in one Contacts group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| groupId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only:' prefix largely restates that. The only added behavioral signal is 'summaries,' implying a reduced field set. Pagination behavior, ordering, and what happens when a group is empty or the offset exceeds the member count are not disclosed.
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 short sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler; it is easy to scan. It loses a point only because the 'Read-only:' clause duplicates information already carried by the annotations rather than earning 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?
There is no output schema, so the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a paginated list tool with a default page size of 20 and zero schema documentation, the absence of any pagination or result-size guidance leaves a real gap for correct invocation.
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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only implies groupId via 'one Contacts group' and says nothing about limit or offset. The default limit of 20 means results are silently truncated, and the description gives no hint of that or of how to page through members.
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 gives a specific verb (list) and a precisely scoped resource (summaries of people in one Contacts group), which separates it from siblings like apple_contacts_list_groups and apple_contacts_add_to_group. The word 'summaries' also hints that only lightweight fields are returned. It stops short of naming the alternatives an agent might confuse it with, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'one Contacts group' scope tells the agent a groupId is required, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus apple_contacts_search, apple_contacts_get, or apple_contacts_list_groups. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.