get_contact_by_emailRetrieve all CRM contacts that have at least one contact person matching a specified primary email address.
Get Contact by Email.
Retrieves all contacts that have at least one contact person with the specified primary email address.
For more flexible contact filtering and sorting, use POST /v2/contact/search.
| 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral nuance beyond that: matching is on the contact person's PRIMARY email only, and multiple contacts may be returned for one address. It is silent on case sensitivity, exact-match vs. substring, and cost/rate behavior for an open-world lookup.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the matching rule and the alternative. The leading 'Get Contact by Email.' line largely restates the title rather than adding information, which is the only wasted text.
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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what matters: matching semantics, plurality of results, and an escape hatch to broader search. A note on whether results are exact-match or normalized would make it complete.
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?
Only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the format and pattern constraints. The description adds the useful mapping that the value is compared against the contact person's primary email, but nothing about normalization or case handling.
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?
States a specific verb and resource and clarifies that it returns ALL contacts whose contact person has the given primary email, correcting the singular implication of the name. The alternative it names is an HTTP endpoint (POST /v2/contact/search) rather than the sibling tools search_contacts or get_contact, so sibling differentiation is only partial.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool when flexible filtering or sorting is needed, which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not distinguish this from get_contact (single contact by id) or from upsert_contact_by_email, and the recommended alternative is given as an API path rather than a sibling tool name an agent could invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.