Search for people by name or email, among those you share a workspace or project with — this is not a global xTiles user directory. Useful for finding user IDs to assign tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results, 1–50. Defaults to 10. | |
| query | Yes | Search query (name or email) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint the annotations do not: results are scoped to people you share a workspace or project with, meaning zero global results are possible.
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?
Two compact clauses with no filler; the scope constraint and the not-global warning come first, and the practical use case is last. Every sentence 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Scope, exclusions, and purpose are all covered for a simple two-parameter lookup; only edge behavior such as no-match results is unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both query (name or email) and limit (1–50, default 10) documented inline. The description echoes the query semantics but adds nothing about format, matching behavior, or empty results, so it sits at the baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (search) plus resource (people/users) and immediately bounds the scope to shared workspace or project members. This distinguishes it cleanly from a global directory lookup, which no sibling tool covers.
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?
Explicitly excludes the wrong interpretation (not a global directory) and gives a concrete use case — finding user IDs for task assignment. It falls short of naming an alternative tool when the search fails (e.g., get_current_user), so it is strong but not fully routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
