Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
oitvoip-mcp-server

oitvoip-mcp-server

Official
by OITApps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

search_users

Search for users by username or partial username in the NetSapiens system. Optionally filter by domain and limit results.

Instructions

Search for users in the NetSapiens system

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query (username or partial username)
domainNoOptional specific domain to search in
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (default: 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or how the search query matching works. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. While it lacks depth, it is not verbose and directly states the purpose, earning a high score for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output format, pagination behavior, or how domain affects results, leaving the agent underinformed for a search operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All three parameters have clear descriptions in the schema, covering the search query, optional domain, and limit. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches for users, which is a specific verb and resource. However, among sibling tools like get_user, it does not explicitly differentiate that this is a search/list operation versus a single-user retrieval, missing a chance to clarify scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user. The description provides no context about prerequisites, filtering behavior, or comparison to other search or retrieval tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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