Find a user by exact email address and retrieve their userId, firstName, lastName, and email.
Search users by email and return basic identity info (userId, firstName, lastName, email).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address to search (exact match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys a read-only search that returns basic identity fields, but it does not mention exact-match behavior, authorization needs, or what happens when no user is found. For a simple search tool this is adequate but not richly transparent.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place by stating the operation, the resource, and the expected return fields.
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 lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input basis and output shape. It could additionally mention not-found behavior or point to sibling tools for richer data, but those are secondary for this simple tool.
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%, with the email parameter already described as 'Email address to search (exact match)'. The description's phrase 'by email' adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Search'), names the resource ('users by email'), and lists the returned identity fields, making it easy for an agent to distinguish this read-only lookup from siblings like update_manager_hr or get_user_statistics.
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 to find a user by email and obtain basic identity info. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_user_data or get_complete_employee_data for richer user information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.