Skip to main content
Glama

Search Assignable Users

jira_search_assignable_users
Read-only

Search Jira for assignable users by display name, username, or email substring to obtain user identifiers for assigning issues. Requires a project or issue key.

Instructions

Search Jira users assignable in a given project or issue.

Use this when you have a display name / partial name / email fragment and need a concrete identifier (name / key for Server/DC, accountId for Cloud) to feed into assignee, reporter, watcher, etc.

Returns the full result set so the caller can disambiguate when several users match — get_user_profile only resolves one identifier and is not designed for human-name search.

Exactly one of project_key or issue_key must be provided — the underlying API (/user/assignable/search) requires a project or issue context and works without the global "Browse Users" permission that bot accounts in locked-down DC instances often lack.

Args: ctx: The FastMCP context. query: Display name / username / email substring. project_key: Project key (e.g. 'DT') to scope the search. issue_key: Issue key (e.g. 'DT-779') to scope the search. limit: Maximum number of users to return.

Returns: JSON string: {"success": true, "count": N, "users": [...]} on success, or an error object on failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of users to return (default 20).
queryYesFree-form text to search Jira users by: display name, username, or email substring (e.g. 'Smith', 'jane.doe', 'doe@example.com'). Server-side match is case-insensitive and partial.
issue_keyNoIssue key to scope the search to (e.g. 'DT-779'). Required if project_key is not given.
project_keyNoProject key to scope the search to (e.g. 'DT'). Required if issue_key is not given.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool returns the full result set for disambiguation, requires project/issue context, works without the global 'Browse Users' permission, and describes the output format (JSON with success, count, users). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: summary, usage guidance, parameter details, and return format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the permission context, the rationale for input constraints, and the return format, making it fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that the query is free-form and case-insensitive, explaining the mutual exclusivity of project_key and issue_key, and noting the maximum limit of 1000. This additional context helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 clearly states 'Search Jira users assignable in a given project or issue', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `jira_get_user_profile` by noting that this tool is for human-name search and returns a full result set for disambiguation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when a display name, partial name, or email fragment is available and a concrete identifier is needed. It also explains that exactly one of project_key or issue_key must be provided, the reason (API requirement and permission context), and directs away from `get_user_profile` for this use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GeiserX/atlassian-browser-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server