List and search clients in the Drop Spot directory, filtering by name, email, or company to find specific client records.
List and search clients in the Drop Spot directory. Filter by name, email, or company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of clients to return (default: 50, max: 100) | |
| search | No | Search string to filter clients by name, email, or company name |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. 'List and search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or result structure.
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 and is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding what the tool does.
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 full schema parameter coverage, the description covers the core action and filter dimensions. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it stops short of explaining return shape, pagination behavior, or default result handling.
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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats the searchable fields ('name, email, or company') but does not add syntax, matching rules, or limit semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 and search clients in the Drop Spot directory.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_client tool, which is the main criterion for 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 phrase 'Filter by name, email, or company' implies the tool is used for directory search, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose list_clients over get_client or create_or_update_client. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.