Skip to main content
Glama
ptorsten

humaans-mcp

by ptorsten

find_person_by_email

Retrieve a person's details by searching for their exact email address. Returns the person object if found, or null if no match exists.

Instructions

Find one person by exact email match. Returns the person object, or null if not found.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler/implementation of the find_person_by_email tool. It calls the Humaans API /people endpoint with an email filter and limit=1, then returns the first result or None.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def find_person_by_email(email: str) -> dict[str, Any] | None:
        """Find one person by exact email match. Returns the person object, or null if not found."""
        resp = await client().list_page("/people", filters={"email": email}, limit=1)
        items = _items(resp)
        return items[0] if items else None
  • The tool is registered with the @mcp.tool() decorator on line 70 (just before the function definition).
    @mcp.tool()
  • The function signature defines input schema: email (str) is required. Return type is dict[str, Any] | None.
    async def find_person_by_email(email: str) -> dict[str, Any] | None:
  • The _items helper function is used by find_person_by_email to extract the data list from the API response.
    def _items(resp: Any) -> list[dict[str, Any]]:
        if isinstance(resp, dict) and "data" in resp:
            return resp["data"]
        if isinstance(resp, list):
            return resp
        return []
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the return value (person object or null) and exact match behavior, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded with the action and purpose, making it highly scannable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential return behavior and matching logic. It is sufficiently complete for a simple lookup tool, though more detail on possible errors could be added.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the email parameter, but the description adds critical context: 'exact email match', clarifying that the search is case-sensitive or precise, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool finds one person by exact email match, specifying the verb 'find', resource 'person', and method 'exact email'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_people_by_name' which returns multiple results.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when an exact email is known, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_people_by_name' or 'get_person'. There is no when-not-to-use advice.

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/ptorsten/humaans-mcp'

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