List or search contacts with pagination. Control result size using skip and limit, and filter by name or company to find specific contacts.
List or search PostGrid contacts. Supports pagination with skip/limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of records to skip (default: 0) | |
| limit | No | Maximum records to return (default: 10, max: 100) | |
| search | No | Search by name or company |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions pagination, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what response format is returned, how search behaves, or any constraints beyond the schema defaults. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool without annotation support.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the pagination detail is concise and relevant. Every word earns its place.
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 list/search tool with a fully documented parameter schema, this is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description would benefit from stating what the response contains and clarifying that this is a safe read-only operation. It is minimally complete but leaves some contextual gaps.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters (skip, limit, search), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds only the word 'pagination' and names skip/limit without adding deeper semantic context beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('List or search') and the resource ('PostGrid contacts'), and the pagination note sets expectations about scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like postgrid_get_contact, but the verb 'list/search' distinguishes it adequately from create/update/delete/get variants.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using postgrid_get_contact for a single contact or other list tools for different resources. The description merely states what the tool does without explaining the appropriate selection context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.