List Apple Contacts groups read-only, with optional limit and offset for pagination. Use it to view contact groups before organizing or querying contacts.
Read-only: list Contacts groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
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, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only:' simply restates structured data and adds no new behavioral context. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description could still add value about pagination or return shape but does not.
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 no waste and the key operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
The tool is simple (no output schema, no nested objects, two optional params), so expectations are low, but the undocumented pagination behavior on a list endpoint is a real omission. Without a mention of limit/offset defaults or paging, the description is only minimally complete.
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?
Both parameters (limit, offset) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions them or their pagination semantics. Since the schema does none of the heavy lifting here, the description was obligated to compensate and does not.
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 and resource ('list Contacts groups'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as apple_contacts_list_group_members or apple_contacts_list_accounts, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite several plausible siblings (list_group_members, search, get). The agent gets no routing help beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.