search_memberFind a Circle community member by email to retrieve their profile and account details quickly.
Search a community member. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email of the community member | ||
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'Reads community data' merely echoes readOnlyHint and adds nothing about lookup behavior, miss handling, or scoping that the annotations don't already provide.
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?
At two short sentences it is certainly concise, but the second sentence ('Reads community data') is redundant with the readOnly annotation and the first repeats the title, so neither fully earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and only safety annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what a search returns, how a missing member is handled, and how it relates to get_member/list_members. None of that is present, leaving the definition incomplete for an agent deciding between member-lookup tools.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains that 'account' selects credentials rather than a remote community ID and that 'email' identifies the member. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Search a community member' simply restates the tool name and title, adding no distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate this tool from close siblings like get_member, list_members, or search, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_member or list_members, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 'Reads community data' is a vague tagline, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.