Retrieve a Jira user's profile details using their username, account ID, or email. Get the user information needed for issue tracking and collaboration.
Get details for a specific Jira user by username, account ID, or email. Returns user profile information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | The email address of the user. | ||
| username | No | The username to search for. | |
| accountId | No | The Atlassian account ID of the user. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral context. It communicates that the tool returns user profile information, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior for missing or conflicting identifiers, not-found cases, or any authentication requirements.
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?
A single sentence communicates the action, the resource, the acceptable identifiers, and the return type with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple user-lookup tool, but it leaves an important ambiguity: all three schema parameters are optional, yet the tool likely requires at least one identifier. It also does not specify precedence if multiple identifiers are passed or what 'profile information' includes, which matters more because no output schema is present.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the three parameters. The description adds the 'or' framing, suggesting that one of these identifiers is used, but it does not add significant detail beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names an exact resource ('details for a specific Jira user'), and lists the three lookup identifiers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that return the current user or Confluence users.
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 implies this tool should be used when you need a Jira user's profile details using a known username, account ID, or email. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_jira_current_user or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.