contacts_listLists saved contacts with zone, local time, working hours, and whether they are within them; weekends count as outside. Also shows your zone from the shared business profile.
List saved contacts with their zone, local time now, working hours and whether they are inside them; weekends count as outside. It also prints YOUR zone from the shared business profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the weekend rule ('weekends count as outside') and that it prints the caller's zone, offering useful context beyond the function name. It does not mention any side effects, but as a list operation, none are expected. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with the key distinguishing detail (zone printing). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functional behavior and edge case (weekends). It doesn't specify return format or pagination, but these are minor for such a basic operation. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4; no additional explanation needed.
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 ('List') and resource ('saved contacts'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (zone, local time, working hours, inside/outside, weekends logic). It also adds a unique behavior (prints YOUR zone) that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like business_days or contacts_set.
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 description clearly communicates what the tool returns, which implies when to use it (when you need contact time/zone information). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of its function is sufficient for an agent to select it over siblings. No misleading context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.