Look up a single account member by email or numeric member ID to get their details.
Find one account member by email or id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Account email to look up. | ||
| member_id | No | Numeric member id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Find' clearly signals a non-mutating lookup, but it does not say what happens on no match, whether both parameters are accepted together, whether any permissions are needed, or what the response shape is.
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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, target resource, and lookup criteria, making the core purpose immediately clear.
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 simple 2-parameter read tool, the description provides the essential lookup contract, but it leaves relevant invocation details unclear: the schema lists both parameters as optional with null defaults, while the description implies at least one should be supplied, and there is no mention of no-match behavior or return format.
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 100%, so the property descriptions already explain the parameters. The description's 'email or id' adds the relationship between the two parameters, but it does not materially go beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('account member'), and names the lookup keys ('email or id'). The singular 'one' hints at a distinction from siblings like get_members, but it does not explicitly differentiate among the related member tools.
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 when to use the tool: when you need a single member and have an email or member id. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_members or get_project_members, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.