Retrieve contacts from RD Station CRM with pagination controls. Set page and limit parameters to browse records and manage large contact lists efficiently.
List contacts from RD Station CRM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1 | |
| limit | No | Results per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List contacts' and does not mention pagination behavior, result ordering, default limit/page, or whether this is a read-only operation. The schema implies pagination through page/limit, but the description adds no behavioral context.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though the phrase 'from RD Station CRM' adds little beyond the tool name.
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?
In the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what the agent can expect from the call. It does not mention that the result is a paginated list, what fields are returned, or any default behavior. For a list tool, this is a notable gap.
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%: both 'page' and 'limit' are already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and resource ('contacts') and identifies the system ('RD Station CRM'), making the core function clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like rdstation_get_contact by the plural 'contacts', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rdstation_get_contact for a single contact or rdstation_create_contact for adding one. Usage is only implied by the word 'List', which is not enough for an agent to confidently select among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.