list_contactsRetrieve contacts from Solo CRM, optionally filtered by search string or tag, to find specific entries.
List contacts, optionally filtered by a search string (name, email, company, notes) or tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the query spans name, email, company and notes, but says nothing about pagination, default limit, or result ordering.
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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the filterable fields parenthetically grouped. Zero filler; every clause adds 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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it omits pagination behavior, the significance of the limit cap, default ordering, and whether results are truncated. An agent could call it correctly but not predict result shape.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain the semantics of 'query' (fields searched) and implies 'tag' filtering. However 'limit' is completely unexplained and the tag matching rule (exact vs partial, max 40 chars) is left to the schema's constraints alone.
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 filtering dimensions, which clearly separates it from get_contact (single record) and the upsert/delete siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting scopes, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 word 'optionally' implies the tool works with or without filters, which is implicit usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_contact, no mention that an empty result is normal, and no guidance on combining query with tag.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.