Skip to main content
Glama

Search Users

search_users
Read-only

按用户名或昵称模糊搜索 PowPow 用户(不区分大小写,最多 20 条)。返回昵称、用户名、简介与主页链接;已登录时标注哪些是你已关注的人。用于「帮我找找叫 xx 的用户」。

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes搜索关键词:用户名或昵称的一部分
limitNo返回条数,默认 10

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: case-insensitivity, a hard 20-result cap, the returned fields, and that follow-status annotation only occurs when logged in. These are useful operational details not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

A single compact sentence grouping the match rule first, then return fields, then the use case — well front-loaded with no filler. Minor repetition of the 20-result cap that the limit parameter already encodes.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the conditional follow-status marker, which an agent needs to interpret results. For a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that q matches username or nickname case-insensitively and that 20 is the ceiling, but adds no syntax, escaping, or matching-order guidance beyond what the schema already states — baseline 3.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('模糊搜索 PowPow 用户') and adds scope qualifiers: matching on username or nickname, case-insensitive, capped at 20 results. It does not name any sibling (e.g. get_user_profile for exact lookups), so it falls short of full differentiation, but the 'fuzzy' framing makes the search-vs-fetch distinction inferable.

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?

It supplies a concrete usage scenario ('用于「帮我找找叫 xx 的用户」'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick over a direct profile lookup. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of the top band.

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.