bird_list_contactsList contacts (CRM records) in the workspace, newest first, as a cursor page. Bird API: GET /v1/contacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items per page. | |
| starting_after | No | Cursor from a previous response's `next_cursor` field, to fetch the next page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds valuable context by disclosing 'newest first' ordering and 'cursor page' pagination. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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?
The description is two brief sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the API endpoint. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, scope, ordering, pagination, and endpoint. It could mention return fields, but that is not critical given the cursor-page design and provided schema descriptions.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters (limit, starting_after) with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'cursor page' context that aligns with starting_after, but doesn't formally explain each parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'contacts (CRM records)', scope 'in the workspace', ordering 'newest first', and pagination style 'as a cursor page'. This distinguishes it from siblings like bird_create_contact, bird_get_contact, and bird_list_audience_contacts.
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 implies usage for listing workspace-level contacts, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling bird_list_audience_contacts exists, but no guidance is given about when to use one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: audiences, contacts, messages by channel, templates by channel, and contact properties. Get/list/create operations are clearly separated, with no overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow the consistent bird_<verb>_<resource> pattern, using verbs create/get/list and channel-prefixed resources (e.g., bird_get_email_message, bird_list_whatsapp_templates). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
At 16 tools, the count is just above the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable given the need to cover three message channels and multiple resource types. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The set covers create, get, and list for audiences/contacts, and get/list for messages, but lacks update/delete for audiences/contacts, any send-message capability, and template management beyond listing. These are significant gaps for a messaging platform.