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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'GET /users/search.json'. No additional behavioral context is provided (e.g., pagination behavior, result limits, or response format), but given the annotation coverage, a baseline score is appropriate.
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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the function, the second provides the REST endpoint. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only search tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, this description is largely complete. It does not mention the return format or edge cases (e.g., empty results), but the tool's low complexity and pagination parameters in the schema cover the main usage needs.
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%—each parameter (query, page, per_page) already has clear descriptions. The description's mention of 'name, email, phone' adds slight context for the query parameter but does not go beyond the schema's existing explanations. Baseline 3 is justified.
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 states the tool's function: 'Find users by name, email, phone, or other attributes.' This gives a specific verb ('find') and resource ('users') plus the matching REST endpoint, distinguishing it from siblings like zendesk_get_user (by ID) and zendesk_search (cross-resource).
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 implies usage context: use when searching for users by attributes rather than by known ID. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use zendesk_search for searching all resource types'). The purpose is clear enough to guide basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.