amp_user_searchSearch for users by ID or property (e.g., email, user_id). Returns matching profiles with properties, event history, and segments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | User search term (email, user_id, or Amplitude ID) | |
| _apiKey | Yes | Amplitude API key | |
| _secretKey | Yes | Amplitude secret key |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matches | No | Matching user profiles |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "matches": {
+ "description": "Matching user profiles",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "amplitude_id": {
+ "description": "Amplitude internal user ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "email": {
+ "description": "User email address",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "last_used": {
+ "description": "Last activity timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "properties": {
+ "description": "User custom properties",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "segments": {
+ "description": "User segment memberships",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "user_id": {
+ "description": "User's ID from app",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-amplitude-api-key",
+ "_secretKey": "your-amplitude-secret-key",
+ "user": "user123@example.com"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what is returned (matching profiles with properties, event history, and segments), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence that is clear and to the point. No wasted words; front-loaded with the primary action and succinctly describes what the tool returns.
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 tool has 3 required parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema (present but not shown), and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the search input and the output content, making the tool well-understood.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by providing examples of search terms (e.g., email, user_id) and clarifying the 'user' parameter's allowed values. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches for users by ID or property (e.g., email, user_id) and returns profiles with properties, event history, and segments. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like amp_get_active_users or amp_get_events.
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?
Description implies usage for user search but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like amp_get_user_activity. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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.