Find a person's Exchange account from pinyin or full email, disambiguating candidates using past email history. Auto-selects only if one candidate has prior correspondence.
使用姓名拼音或完整邮箱解析人员，并结合历史邮件消歧。
裸拼音会收集所有已配置公司域名下、邮箱 local-part 以该拼音开头的候选； 不会优先选择无数字后缀的邮箱。多个候选中若只有一个存在历史来往才自动选择。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| auto_select | No | ||
| lookback_days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully: it discloses that bare pinyin collects candidates across all configured company domains by email local-part prefix, that it does not prefer non-digit-suffixed emails, and that auto-selection only fires when exactly one candidate has historical correspondence. It omits permission/auth requirements and result shape, but the disambiguation semantics are unusually well surfaced.
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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core resolution contract comes first and the disambiguation edge cases follow. Nothing padding, though it is information-heavy for its length.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the disambiguation logic is covered. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, gaps remain around limit/lookback_days semantics and the absence of any mutation/side-effect statement for what is an identity-resolving lookup.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents the query parameter (pinyin vs full email) and the trigger logic behind auto_select, but leaves 'limit' and 'lookback_days' unexplained (the '历史来往' reference only vaguely implies a history window). Partial compensation for a 4-parameter, zero-coverage 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('解析人员' / resolve people) via pinyin name or full email, and adds the disambiguation mechanism. It clearly distinguishes itself from the mail/calendar siblings, none of which resolve identities, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is a name/email-to-person lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a prerequisite such as resolving a person before sending an invitation. The rules about bare pinyin describe behavior more than they route the agent between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.