google_contacts_listList contacts for a specified Google account, returning names, email addresses, and phone numbers, with pagination for large contact lists.
List the account's contacts with names, emails and phones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| pageSize | No | Max contacts (default 100). | |
| pageToken | No | Page token from a previous result's nextPageToken. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / pageTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page token from a previous result's nextPageToken.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of pagination limits, ordering, permission scoping, or how nextPageToken results behave — the schema mentions the token but the description does not explain the paging loop an agent must run.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the space saved could have been spent on paging or sibling differentiation.
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 3-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description minimally suffices and usefully hints at returned fields. However, it omits result paging behavior (nextPageToken) and how many records come back by default, which matter in practice.
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 account, pageSize, and pageToken are already documented in structured data. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify default account behavior when 'account' is omitted — baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource (list contacts) plus the fields returned (names, emails, phones). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling google_contacts_search or google_contacts_get, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.
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 gives no indication of when to prefer this over google_contacts_search or google_contacts_get, and no guidance on paging through results. It says nothing about when NOT to use it or what prerequisites (account selection/default) apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.