Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Box MCP Server

Box MCP Server

by yandisa2005
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

box_users_locate_by_email_tool

Find a Box user by exact email address to retrieve account details or confirm whether that user exists.

Instructions

Locate a user by their email address. This is an exact match search. Args: ctx (Context): The context object containing the request and lifespan context. email (str): The email address of the user to locate. Returns: dict: A dictionary containing the user information if found, otherwise a message with no user found.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "box_users_locate_by_email_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the exact match behavior and return format (dictionary with user info or message if not found), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific user information is returned, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is clear but includes unnecessary implementation detail ('ctx' parameter that agents don't use), slightly reducing efficiency. Overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple lookup tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more detail about authentication needs, error handling, and the structure of returned user information to be fully complete for agent use.

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 its single parameter, but the description compensates well by clearly explaining that the 'email' parameter is 'The email address of the user to locate' and specifying it's an exact match search. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Locate a user') and resource ('by their email address'), with additional precision about the search type ('exact match search'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_users_locate_by_name_tool' and 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool' by specifying the exact email-based lookup method.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find a user by their exact email address. It implicitly contrasts with sibling tools that search by name or allow broader searches, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools