Add up to 500 contacts to a static smart list by passing the smart list UUID and an array of contact UUIDs, enabling targeted grouping of contacts in Conduyt.
Add contacts to a static smart list. Max 500 contacts per request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contactIds | Yes | Contact UUIDs to add (max 500) | |
| smartListId | Yes | Smart list UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the 500-contact cap. It says nothing about whether duplicate memberships are silently skipped, what happens on partial success, required permissions, or reversibility of the mutation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the hard limit. Nothing wasted.
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 an unannotated bulk mutation with no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what a mixed result looks like, whether the call is idempotent, or how to recover from a 500-limit violation. The size limit alone is too thin a behavioral contract.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 500 limit restates a constraint already present in the contactIds schema description, adding little beyond what the structured field 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?
Names a specific verb (add) and resource (contacts → smart list), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like conduyt_get_smart_list_contacts or conduyt_add_tags, so it stops short of 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 word "static" hints that the target must be a static smart list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as conduyt_list_smart_lists to find an ID or conduyt_get_smart_list_contacts to verify.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.