clio_contact_searchSearch Clio contacts by name, email, or phone, then filter results to clients only or by Person or Company type to find the right record.
Searches people and companies by name, e-mail or phone (query); optionally only clients or only type Person/Company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | Default 25 | |
| query | No | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| client_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-beta.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the query semantics. It never says that all six parameters are optional (a query-less call presumably returns an unfiltered list), nor does it mention pagination, result caps, or ordering. 'Searches' weakly implies a read, but that is inference, not disclosure.
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 compact sentence with the primary search fields front-loaded and the optional filters trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the semicolon construction is slightly dense.
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 no annotations, no output schema, six parameters at 17% schema coverage, and no required parameters, the description should do far more work. An agent still cannot tell what an empty-query call returns, how paging works, or whether ids is an alternative lookup path.
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 17%, so the description must compensate; it does explain query, type, and client_only, but leaves ids, limit, and page_token completely unaddressed in both schema and description. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema lands at the baseline 3.
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 ('Searches people and companies') plus the searchable fields (name, e-mail, phone), which clearly separates it from clio_contact_get and clio_contact_create. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description notes that results can be narrowed to clients or to Person/Company, but that is parameter behavior, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to use this search versus clio_contact_get, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.