Search CRM contacts by name, email, phone, or identifier to locate records and support follow-up actions.
Busca contatos por nome, e-mail, telefone ou identificador.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Termo de busca do contato. | |
| 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that matching spans multiple fields (name, email, phone, identifier), which is useful retrieval context, but says nothing about match semantics (partial/case-insensitive) 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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed, though it stops short of anything beyond the bare purpose.
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 three-parameter search with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the essentials are present. Missing are the matching semantics and whether results are paginated in a way that requires iterating with page/limit, which would help an agent call it correctly.
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%, with q, page and limit all documented including defaults and ranges, so the baseline is 3. The description's field list loosely maps to q but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 ("Busca") and resource ("contatos") plus the fields searched, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling contacts_list, leaving the differentiation to inference.
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 mention of "por nome, e-mail, telefone ou identificador" implies this is the tool for keyword lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when contacts_list would be preferable. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.