FS_MCP_thin

Search Agents

search_agents

Find support agents by email address. Retrieve agent details to identify the right contact for ticket triage and assignments.

Instructions

Find agents by email

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_agents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Email address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool name and parameter, and doesn't state whether the search is read-only, returns a list, or exact vs. partial email matching. This is a minimal disclosure.

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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the action, resource, and search criterion.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple single-parameter search tool, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the return format (list vs. single agent), which is a key distinction from get_agent. With no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify such behavior.

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?

The schema already describes the query parameter as 'Email address' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by email' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action (find) and resource (agents) along with the search criterion (by email). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_agent, which likely retrieves by ID. However, it is brief and doesn't specify the scope or return format.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_agent or search_requesters. It doesn't mention that this is specifically for agents, nor does it exclude other search methods.

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