search_peopleSearch for people by name, description, or natural language query. Invoke immediately when the user asks to search Orbit. Do not add assistant preambles like 'I'm checking...'; rely on tool status text and widget output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query for finding people. Invoke directly without preamble narration. | |
| connectionToken | No | Optional session connection token from connect_orbit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description discloses important behavioral expectations: call the tool directly, avoid assistant narration, and rely on tool status text and widget output. This adds practical insight into how the tool behaves and how the agent should respond after invocation.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core function, then immediately give actionable invocation behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.
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?
Given the simple tool signature, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers the main operational needs: what the tool does, when to invoke it, and how to handle the interaction. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from search_people_updates, though the sibling name and 'people' focus make the distinction largely inferable.
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%, so the parameters query and connectionToken are already documented clearly in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly identifies the verb and resource: 'Search for people by name, description, or natural language query.' It also specifies the acceptable query types, which helps an agent understand scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling search_people_updates, so differentiation must be inferred.
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?
The description gives explicit invocation guidance: 'Invoke immediately when the user asks to search Orbit' and instructs the agent to avoid preambles. This is clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
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.
The auth/connection tools and people-search tools are clearly separated, and get_profile/search_people form an obvious workflow. The main overlap is me vs whoami, both exposing current-user information, though their descriptions point to different payloads.
Five tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern, but auth_status, me, and whoami break that pattern with noun, pronoun, and single-word names. The names are still readable, but the set lacks a consistent naming convention.
Eight tools is well within the well-scoped range for this server's auth and people-lookup purpose. Each tool has a clear responsibility in the workflow, and the count does not feel bloated or thin.
The tool set covers the full auth lifecycle with connect, disconnect, and status, plus a complete people lookup path from search to profile retrieval. There are no obvious dead ends for the server's apparent scope.