Mitti MCP Server

Users Search Users

users_search_users

Find Mitti users by name or email substring. Returns matching user IDs, names, emails, and statuses.

Instructions

Search for Mitti users by name or email substring. NOTE: the underlying API only supports exact-match filters, so this fetches all users and filters client-side — it is not efficient for very large organizations. Returns matching users with their IDs, names, emails, and statuses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (default 10, max 100).
`query`	Yes	Search string to match against user names and email addresses.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	No
`users`	No
`next_page_token`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a significant non-obvious behavior: the API only supports exact-match filters, so the tool downloads all users and filters locally. It also states the returned fields, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and cost.

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?

Three focused sentences front-load the purpose, add a crucial efficiency caveat, and state return contents. No filler words; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter schema with full descriptions, an output schema, and the behavioral disclosure in the description, an agent has all the information needed to invoke this tool correctly. The efficiency warning is particularly important context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds the important 'substring' interpretation of the query, plus the client-side filtering implication. The limit parameter is already fully described in the schema, so no further description is needed.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: search for Mitti users by name or email substring. It does not explicitly name sibling users_list_users, so differentiation rests on the word 'search' rather than an explicit contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The warning about fetching all users for client-side filtering and being inefficient for large organizations gives an implicit when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not mention alternatives such as users_list_users or state precise conditions for choosing this tool.

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

Deploy Server