users
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| NODE_ENV | No | Environment mode. 'development' enables pretty logs. | development |
| LOG_LEVEL | No | Log level: debug/info/warn/error/silent. | info |
| USERS_API_BASE_URL | No | Base URL of the users API. | http://localhost:3000 |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_user_by_emailA | Get user information by email. Returns the user's id, name, and email address. |
| get_user_by_nameA | Get user information by name. Returns the user's id, name, and email address. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are clearly distinguished by their lookup parameter: email vs. name. Descriptions explicitly state each input, so an agent can confidently select the appropriate tool without ambiguity.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun_by_attribute pattern (get_user_by_...). This is consistent and predictable, making it easy to infer behavior from the name.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin, but the scope may be intentionally limited to user lookup. It is not as extreme as having a single trivial tool, so it sits at the borderline.
The server only provides read operations for users. There are no create, update, delete, or list endpoints, which are essential for a 'users' domain. This is a significant functional gap that will hinder agents needing full user lifecycle management.