list_contact_notesRetrieve paginated notes for a specific Circle community contact by contact ID, with optional page and account selection.
List Contact Notes. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. | |
| contact_id | Yes | Contact ID or sqid |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. 'Reads community data' is consistent but redundant with readOnlyHint and adds no new behavioral context (no pagination behavior, no return shape). No contradiction, but no added value either.
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 and free of padding, but the second sentence is vague filler rather than substance. It is concise without being informative, so it sits at an adequate rather than strong level.
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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the main missing pieces are the relationship to create_contact_note and any hint about pagination or note content. With no output schema present, the description does nothing to fill the remaining gap, leaving it incomplete for an agent choosing among ~100 siblings.
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 contact_id, page, and account are already documented in the schema (account's 'selects credentials, not a remote community ID' note is notably clear). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.
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?
The sentence 'List Contact Notes' merely restates the tool name and title without adding a verb-resource distinction or scope. 'Reads community data' is a vague qualifier that could describe nearly any sibling read tool. Nothing distinguishes it from list_comments, list_member_tags, or the sibling create_contact_note.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. An agent would not know from the description that create_contact_note exists for writing, or that this is the read counterpart scoped to a single contact. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.