Skip to main content
Glama
EduBase

EduBase MCP Server

Official
by EduBase
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

edubase_get_user_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for a user by email, username, or user ID to retrieve their user identifier and determine if the account is a generated exam account.

Instructions

Look up a user by email address, username or user identification string. Returns the user identification string and whether it is a generated exam account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesquery string

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
examYes
userYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • removedOutput schema / properties / exam / description
      Removed value: -"exam (generated) account"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / user / description
      Removed value: -"user identification string"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.2
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "exam": {
+      "description": "exam (generated) account",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "user": {
+      "description": "user identification string",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "user",
+    "exam"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.22

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the lookup returns the user identification string and a generated-exam-account flag, which is useful but modest context beyond the annotations; edge behaviors like no-match or multiple-match outcomes are not addressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler: the action and accepted query formats are front-loaded, and the return summary follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what inputs are valid, and what it returns. The remaining gap is minor: it does not specify behavior when no user matches or when multiple users match, but the low complexity and structured output schema keep this from being a significant deficiency.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter description ('query string') is a tautology that adds no meaning. The tool description compensates by specifying that the query can be an email address, username, or user identification string, which is essential semantic information for constructing a correct call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Look up a user') and enumerates the accepted identifier types (email address, username, user identification string). This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like edubase_get_user, edubase_get_user_me, and edubase_get_users, and it also summarizes the return value, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you have an email, username, or user identification string and need to resolve it to a user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions among the many user-related siblings, so it stops 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools