search_contacts_by_emailsSearch SendGrid contacts by entering email addresses to locate specific recipients. Retrieve matching contact records for targeted campaigns and list management.
Search for specific contacts by their email addresses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | Yes | Array of email addresses to search for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / emails / items / patternAdded value: +"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some scoping context by indicating the search is based on email addresses, but it does not disclose matching semantics, result shape, or limits. This is acceptable but not rich.
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 or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and search criterion.
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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter, a complete schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could briefly mention the return format or no-match behavior, but the purpose implies that matching contacts are returned.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'emails' parameter, including format and pattern constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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') and resource ('contacts'), and narrows the operation by email addresses, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like search_contacts and list_contacts. The title and description together unambiguously state what the tool does.
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 phrase 'by their email addresses' implies this tool is appropriate for exact-email lookup rather than broad contact listing or searching. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.