List Intercom contacts with pagination and limit controls to retrieve customer records for support and outreach workflows.
List Intercom contacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Contacts to return (max 150, default 25) | |
| access_token | Yes | Intercom access token | |
| starting_after | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds nothing beyond those structured fields — no note on pagination behavior, result caps, rate limits, or what a page of contacts contains.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects thin content rather than disciplined editing.
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?
With full schema coverage, annotations, and only three params, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. It falls short of complete because it never addresses the list-vs-search relationship or the pagination workflow that the starting_after cursor implies.
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%: limit (max 150, default 25), access_token, and starting_after (pagination cursor) are all documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 Intercom contacts'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely related sibling intercom_search_contacts, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick.
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 rather than intercom_search_contacts, intercom_list_conversations, or any of the many hubspot/xero contact-list siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned; the agent must infer that this is the unfiltered enumeration path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.