Podio MCP Server

podio_search

Search Podio items, tasks, statuses, contacts, and app or org data by query or ID to locate records and support follow-up.

Instructions

Search across Podio for items, tasks, statuses, contacts, etc.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "podio_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`appId`	No
`limit`	No
`orgId`	No
`query`	No	Search term
`refType`	No
`spaceId`	No
`contactId`	No
`operation`	Yes	Search operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 says nothing about permissions, pagination, result limits, or how the operation modes behave. 'Search' implies a read, but nothing beyond that is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification; 'etc.' signals imprecision rather than conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 8 parameters including a five-value operation enum (global, app, contacts, get_contact, list_contacts) plus no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It never explains the operation modes, which are the primary driver of how the tool is invoked.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 25% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the description needs to compensate but does not. The listed content types loosely echo the refType/operation enum values but explain none of the parameters (appId, orgId, spaceId, contactId, limit) or the meaning of the five operation modes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('across Podio'), and lists example content types (items, tasks, statuses, contacts). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like podio_items or podio_tasks, and the trailing 'etc.' leaves the scope fuzzy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this search tool versus the topic-specific siblings (podio_items, podio_tasks, podio_communication) or how the 'operation' modes differ. An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server