Search contacts by name, email, phone, or organization to return matching contacts with all details.
Search your contacts by name, email, phone, or organization. Returns matching contacts with all their details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 30) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g., 'John', 'Acme Corp', 'john@example.com') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search and notes that results include all contact details, which is useful, but it omits permissions, pagination behavior tied to limit, and any other operational traits.
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 scope, then the return behavior. Efficient with no filler, though it is not rich enough to merit a 5.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it covers what can be searched and that full details are returned. It does not address paging/limit semantics or sibling disambiguation, leaving minor 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query and limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the searchable fields, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema; 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?
States a specific verb (Search) and resource (contacts) plus the searchable fields (name, email, phone, organization), so the core function is unmistakable. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like contacts_lookup or person_search, which likely overlap in intent.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to the closely related contacts_lookup or person_search siblings. The agent must infer the selection criteria with no help from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.