Retrieve contacts from a saved view to review CRM records with paging, sorting, and field order. Call list_views for the contacts module first to get a view_id.
List contacts from a saved view. Call list_views(module="contacts") first to get a view_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | Field name to sort by | |
| view_id | Yes | View id from list_views | |
| per_page | No | ||
| sort_type | No |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the view_id dependency but says nothing about pagination behavior, whether the call is read-only, result ordering defaults, or what happens on an invalid view_id.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the prerequisite. Every sentence 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?
A 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage needs more than a dependency hint. Pagination, sorting, and return shape are left entirely unexplained.
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 only 40% (page, per_page, and sort_type are undocumented), and the description adds nothing about those. Its mention of view_id essentially repeats the schema's own 'View id from list_views' text, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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) and scopes it to a saved view, which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_contacts. However, it never names search_contacts as the alternative, so the agent must infer the distinction from the phrase 'from a saved view' 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?
Provides a concrete prerequisite ordering ('Call list_views(module="contacts") first to get a view_id'), which is genuinely useful setup guidance. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over search_contacts or view_contact, so usage is only partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.