Skip to main content
Glama

twenty

by io.usefulapi

List people

twenty_list_people
Read-only

List/filter people (contacts). Supports cursor pagination, raw filter/order_by, and relation depth. Twenty REST: GET /rest/people.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoHow deep to hydrate related records: 0, 1, or 2.
limitNoResults per page (1-60, default 20 — Twenty caps at 60).
filterNoRaw Twenty filter string, passed verbatim as ?filter=. Syntax: field[comparator]:value, e.g. `employees[gte]:100` or `stage[eq]:"MEETING"`. Comparators: eq, neq, gt, gte, lt, lte, in, is, like, ilike, startsWith.
order_byNoRaw Twenty ordering string, passed verbatim as ?order_by=, e.g. `createdAt[DescNullsLast]`.
ending_beforeNoPagination cursor — return records before this cursor (from a previous page's pageInfo).
starting_afterNoPagination cursor — return records after this cursor (from a previous page's pageInfo).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true. The description adds that this is a REST GET endpoint and discloses support for cursor pagination, raw filter/order_by, and relation depth—non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, capabilities, and endpoint. No redundant or extraneous content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list endpoint with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers key behaviors: listing, filtering, pagination, ordering, relation depth, and the REST endpoint. Given the readOnlyHint annotation and standard GET semantics, return value expectations are obvious, so no additional detail is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., limit range, cursor fields, filter syntax examples). The description's mention of pagination/filter/depth is a high-level summary that adds no new specifics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'List/filter people (contacts)' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (companies, notes, opportunities, tasks) by specifying 'people'. The additional mention of filtering and pagination clarifies its scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context about supported features (cursor pagination, raw filter/order_by, relation depth) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like twenty_get_person for a single record. Usage is implied by the resource name and capabilities, but no exclusions or alternative tools are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All twenty toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool follows a clear action-entity pattern, so there is no overlap; even the metadata listing is distinct from record operations. No two tools could be confused.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use the twenty_<verb>_<entity> convention with verbs create/get/list/update, in lowercase snake_case. Naming is perfectly consistent across the set.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but justified by five core entities each needing create/get/list/update. However, the count feels a bit heavy, especially without delete tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers create, read, and list for all entities, and update for most, but lacks delete operations entirely and does not support updating notes. These are notable gaps in full lifecycle management.

Resources