find_deals_by_emailRetrieves all deals linked to contacts with a matching primary email address, helping you trace opportunities by a specific person's email.
Find Deals by Email.
Retrieves all deals linked to contacts that have at least one contact person with the specified primary email address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The email address to search for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: matching is restricted to the *primary* email on a contact person, not any email. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or what happens with multiple matching contacts, which matters for an 'all deals' retrieval.
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 body is a single efficient sentence, but the opening line 'Find Deals by Email.' merely restates the tool name and title and earns no place. The substantive clarification is buried in the second sentence rather than front-loaded.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies what an agent needs: the resource, the join path, and the primary-email restriction. Only minor gaps remain, such as expected result volume and pagination behavior.
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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the email argument including its format. The description's 'primary email address' wording adds matching semantics but no format, normalization, or case-sensitivity guidance beyond the schema pattern.
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 ('Retrieves all deals') and adds a real disambiguating detail: matches come through contact persons whose *primary* email equals the value. That distinguishes it conceptually from list_deals_by_contact and search_deals, though it never names either sibling, so an agent must still infer the boundary.
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 'at least one contact person with the specified primary email' phrasing implies the lookup use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. search_deals or list_deals_by_contact guidance, and no statement about when this returns nothing (e.g., email belongs only to a secondary contact person).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.