macos-agent-bridge

by juliusloon

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

contacts_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search authorized macOS Contacts by name to get basic details; limited-access contacts may be incomplete.

Instructions

Search authorized Contacts by name. Returns basic contact fields; limited-access contacts may be incomplete. [v1.0.0; permissions: contacts]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "contacts_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	Name query

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes
`tool`	Yes	tool name
`error`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`version`	Yes	semantic version

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding non-obvious context: results are basic fields only, limited-access contacts may come back incomplete, and it is gated behind the 'contacts' permission. This is exactly the kind of caveat annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by a compact result caveat and a permissions tag. No filler, though the version bracket is mild boilerplate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only search with an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured fields don't: that results may be partial for limited-access contacts. Missing only minor detail like ordering or pagination, which matters little alongside the limit parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% — 'query' is documented as 'Name query' but 'limit' has an empty description, and the tool description never clarifies result-count behavior. 'By name' mildly reinforces the query meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (authorized Contacts) with a clear scope ('by name'). It is naturally distinguishable from contacts_get/contacts_create/contacts_update, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'by name' scoping implies when this tool applies (name-based lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-contacts_get guidance and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server