Skip to main content
Glama

atlassian-mcp__jira_search_users

Read-only

Search for Jira users by name, username, or email address. Returns matching user accounts with display names and account IDs.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "atlassian-mcp__jira_search_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query — matches against name, username, or email
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
max_resultsNoMaximum number of results to return (default 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape (display names and account IDs), but says nothing about pagination, whether max_results is capped server-side, or what an empty result set looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return value. Nothing is repeated and nothing is padding.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a safety annotation, this covers purpose and output content adequately. The only missing piece is edge-case behavior (no matches, result limits), which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the account override and max_results default is already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the matchable fields duplicates rather than extends that, so baseline 3 is correct.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for Jira users') plus the matchable fields, which cleanly separates it from issue-oriented siblings such as jira_search or jira_get_issue. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it lands just under the top mark.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup to run before assigning an issue, adding a commenter, or resolving a username. There is no statement of when to prefer it over jira_search, and no note about what to do when no user matches.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.