Skip to main content
Glama

fluentcrm_find_contact_by_email

Find a contact in FluentCRM using their email address to manage marketing automation tasks from Cursor.

Instructions

Wyszukuje kontakt po adresie email

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesAdres email

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler implementation in the switch statement of CallToolRequestSchema. Calls the FluentCRMClient's findContactByEmail method with the input email argument and returns the JSON-stringified result.
    case 'fluentcrm_find_contact_by_email':
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await client.findContactByEmail((args as any)?.email), null, 2) }] };
  • Tool registration in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, defining the tool name, description, and input schema that requires an 'email' string parameter.
    {
      name: 'fluentcrm_find_contact_by_email',
      description: 'Wyszukuje kontakt po adresie email',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          email: { type: 'string', description: 'Adres email' },
        },
        required: ['email'],
      },
    },
  • Core helper method in FluentCRMClient class that performs the API call to find a contact by email using GET /subscribers?search={email} and returns the first matching subscriber or null.
    async findContactByEmail(email: string) {
      const response = await this.apiClient.get('/subscribers', {
        params: { search: email },
      });
      return response.data.data?.[0] || null;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a search, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it returns a single contact or multiple matches, error handling for non-existent emails, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Polish that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and criterion, with no redundant words or unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a search operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., contact details, null if not found), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'email' parameter documented as 'Adres email' (Email address). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only restates the parameter's purpose. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without extra param info in the description.

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 'Wyszukuje kontakt po adresie email' (Searches for a contact by email address) clearly states the verb 'wyszukuje' (searches) and the resource 'kontakt' (contact), with the specific criterion 'po adresie email' (by email address). It distinguishes from siblings like 'fluentcrm_get_contact' (which might use an ID) and 'fluentcrm_list_contacts' (which lists multiple contacts), but does not explicitly name these alternatives. It is specific and actionable, though not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like searching by email instead of ID, or when to prefer this over list operations. Without any context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/netflyapp/fluentcrm-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server