Search GoHighLevel team members by name or email to locate user information and access account details.
Search team members by name or email.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ghl_search_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning return format, pagination, exact match behavior, or permissions. This is a thin description that adds little beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that puts the action first and contains no filler. It is fully front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but omits return-value details. For a search tool, it would be helpful to state that it returns a list of matching users, but the core intent is still understandable.
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?
The schema description for 'query' is generic ('Search query'). The tool description adds meaning by specifying that the query can be a name or email, which clarifies the expected input and compensates for the schema's vagueness.
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 action (search) and the resource (team members) with specific fields (name or email). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_search_contacts by focusing on users/team members rather than contacts.
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 provides clear context on what the tool searches (team members by name or email), which implies when to use it versus alternatives. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the resource scope is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.