Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_search_user

Find GitLab users using partial names, email fragments, or search terms when exact usernames are unknown. Returns user details for team assignments and identification.

Instructions

Search for GitLab users based on partial information or search criteria.

This tool is useful when you don't have the exact username or ID, but need to find users based on name, email, or other search terms. Use this tool when you need to find users based on partial information or search queries.

Examples:

  • Find users by partial name: search_user("John Sm")

  • Search by email domain: search_user("@company.com")

  • Find users for team assignments

Returns user information including:

  • Basic details: ID, username, name, avatar

  • Public profile information

  • Activity status

For getting specific user details when you have exact ID/username, use 'gitlab_get_user' instead.

Parameters:

  • search: Search query (name, username, or email fragment)

  • per_page: Number of results per page (default: 20)

  • page: Page number for pagination (default: 1)

Example: Find users named "John"

{
  "search": "John",
  "per_page": 10
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
searchYesSearch query (name, username, or email fragment)
per_pageNoNumber of results per page Type: integer Range: 1-100 Default: 20 Example: 50 (for faster browsing) Tip: Use smaller values (10-20) for detailed operations, larger (50-100) for listing
pageNoPage number for pagination Type: integer Range: ≥1 Default: 1 Example: 3 (to get the third page of results) Note: Use with per_page to navigate large result sets
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by describing the return format (user information including basic details, public profile, activity status), pagination behavior, and search capabilities. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidance, examples, returns, sibling tool reference, parameters, and example). Some redundancy exists between the description text and the parameter section, but overall it's efficiently organized with each section serving a distinct purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, return format description, parameter explanations, and sibling tool differentiation. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by detailing what information is returned.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description repeats parameter information in a separate section but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The examples help illustrate usage but don't enhance parameter understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Search for') and resource ('GitLab users'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'gitlab_get_user' by explaining it's for partial information searches rather than exact lookups. The title is null, so the description fully defines the tool's function.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you don't have the exact username or ID'), when not to use it (use 'gitlab_get_user' for exact ID/username), and gives concrete examples of search scenarios. The bolded statement reinforces the primary 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/Vijay-Duke/mcp-gitlab'

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