Retrieve a paginated list of CRM contacts to browse or select records by page and limit. Use it when you need to view contacts without loading the entire database.
Lista contatos do CRM com paginação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Página, começando em 1. Mantenha o mesmo limite entre páginas. | |
| limit | No | Máximo de registros retornados por página (1 a 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only extra claim, "com paginação", merely restates the schema parameters and adds nothing about result ordering, consistency across pages, or rate limits — which matters for an openWorld listing tool.
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 short sentence with no waste, and the resource is front-loaded. It is however terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient.
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 list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. But the description never indicates what a contact record looks like, whether ordering is stable across pages, or how this relates to contacts_search, leaving the agent without guidance on a tool that is openWorld.
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% and both page and limit have detailed constraints and defaults, so the schema carries the burden. The description only says pagination exists and adds no format or strategy detail beyond that, making baseline 3 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 and resource ("Lista contatos do CRM") plus the pagination behavior, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling contacts_search, which is the main ambiguity here.
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 and no mention of the obvious alternative contacts_search, which is present in the sibling list. The agent must infer whether to enumerate with this tool or filter with search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.