zendesk_search_usersFind users by name, email, phone, or other attributes. Zendesk REST: GET /users/search.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for offset pagination. | |
| query | Yes | Search string — a name, email, phone, or external id, e.g. 'jane@acme.com' (required). | |
| per_page | No | Records per page (max 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint (GET /users/search.json), which reinforces that it is a read, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what the schema and annotations already convey.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact technical reference, making it easy to scan.
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?
For a low-complexity read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It omits only minor search semantics (e.g., whether matching is partial or exact, and how pagination interacts with total results), but the schema covers pagination parameters adequately.
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 schema already documents the 'query', 'page', and 'per_page' parameters with examples and constraints. The description's mention of name/email/phone attributes maps to the query parameter but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides; the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Find') and resource ('users') and names the searchable fields ('name, email, phone, or other attributes'), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this search-by-attribute tool from the sibling 'zendesk_get_user' (which fetches by ID) or the broader 'zendesk_search', so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 only says what the tool does; it gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'zendesk_get_user' or 'zendesk_search'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
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.