sevdesk_list_contactsRetrieve customers and suppliers from sevDesk in a read-only call, with paging limits and case-insensitive name search to find the contact records you need.
List customers and suppliers. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows (default 200). | |
| search | No | Case-insensitive substring of the contact name. | |
| maxItems | No | Fetch cap: how many records are read from sevDesk before filtering (default 5000). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +1000Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / maxItemsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Fetch cap: how many records are read from sevDesk before filtering (default 5000).",
+ "maximum": 20000,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The description adds useful scope by clarifying that contacts are customers and suppliers, but it does not mention pagination behavior, filtering expectations, or return characteristics beyond what the schema already covers.
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 two short sentences with no wasted language, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool whose schema and annotations carry most of the operational detail.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with full schema descriptions and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. The absence of an output schema means return shape is not described, but the essential purpose and scope are covered.
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 all three parameters already carry clear documentation, including limit and maxItems semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable but provides no extra value over 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List customers and suppliers') and makes clear that contacts include both customers and suppliers. It is distinguishable from sibling list tools by resource, though it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives.
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 such as sevdesk_find_duplicates or other list tools. The description implies a basic listing use case but gives no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.