Skip to main content
Glama
routineco

Routine

Official
by routineco

peopleByEmail

Identify the potential contact associated with an email address using Routine's 'peopleByEmail' tool. Input an email to retrieve ownership details efficiently.

Instructions

The potential contact owning this email address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

Implementation Reference

  • Full tool definition including registration, input schema (email: string), and handler logic that sends RPC request to 'people.by_email' with the email and returns formatted JSON response or error.
        "peopleByEmail",
        "The potential contact owning this email address.",
        {
          /*
    {"$schema":"https://json-schema.org/draft/2019-09/schema","type":"string"}
    */ email: z.string(),
        },
        async ({ email }) => {
          try {
            const data = await sendRpcRequest("people.by_email", [email]);
            return {
              content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }],
            };
          } catch (error) {
            logger.error("Error fetching people.by_email: %o", error);
            return {
              content: [
                {
                  type: "text",
                  text: `Error fetching auth id: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`,
                },
              ],
              isError: true,
            };
          }
        }
      );
  • src/index.ts:234-234 (registration)
    Calls registerServerTools which registers all tools including peopleByEmail.
    registerServerTools(server, sendRpcRequest, logger);
  • Zod schema for input: email as string.
          /*
    {"$schema":"https://json-schema.org/draft/2019-09/schema","type":"string"}
    */ email: z.string(),
        },
        async ({ email }) => {
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. The description doesn't reveal any behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only lookup, if it requires authentication, what happens when no contact is found, or any rate limits. It merely describes the input-output relationship without operational details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though it could be more informative. There's no structural waste, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., contact details, an error if not found), how it behaves, or when to use it. For a lookup tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more operational context.

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 description implies the parameter 'email' is used to identify a contact, which adds some meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage and only specifies the parameter name and type). However, it doesn't clarify the expected format of the email or any validation rules. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides basic context but lacks depth.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'The potential contact owning this email address' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'peopleByEmail' without specifying the action. It doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., 'look up', 'retrieve', 'search for', or 'find' a person by email). The description is vague about the actual operation being performed.

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. Given sibling tools like 'peopleGet' (which likely retrieves people by ID rather than email), there's no indication of when to choose one over the other. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios is mentioned.

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

Related 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/routineco/mcp-server'

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