google_contacts_searchFind any contact by name, email, or phone, including non-connected contacts. Retrieve contact details directly from Google Contacts.
Search contacts (including non-connected) by name, email or phone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search text. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one behavioral trait: 'including non-connected' – indicating the search covers contacts beyond direct connections. However, it does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., list of contacts, pagination, ordering), or any error behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a search tool.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and key scope. There is no fluff or redundant information.
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 search tool with two parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits any information about the return format (since there is no output schema), and it does not mention the 'account' parameter's role in the search. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the query can match 'name, email or phone', giving the agent a clearer idea of what to put in the query field. It does not elaborate on the 'account' parameter, but the schema already describes it as a nickname.
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 clearly states the verb (Search), the resource (contacts), and specifies the scope ('including non-connected') and search fields (name, email, phone). This distinguishes it from the sibling google_contacts_list, which presumably lists contacts without a query. The specificity is strong, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies this tool is used when a search query is available, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus google_contacts_list or other contact tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites. The context is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.