jira_find_userFind Jira users by name or email to get their accountIds for assignee and reporter fields.
Find users by name or email. Returns accountIds, which is what assignee/reporter fields need: {"assignee": {"accountId": "..."}}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape and its exact JSON form, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, side effects, or auth requirements. 'Find' implies a read operation, so this is an adequate but not richly transparent description.
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?
Two short sentences carry the exact information the agent needs: lookup by name/email, and the exact output format with a concrete example. Every phrase earns its place; nothing is redundant.
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?
For a 2-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains why accountIds matter by showing their use in assignee/reporter fields, covering the practical context. The only gap is that 'limit' is not explained or given guidance, but the schema's default makes this minor.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' accepts a name or email, which adds needed meaning to the one required parameter. However, 'limit' is not described at all, so parameter-level guidance is only partial.
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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Find users by name or email.' It then states the concrete purpose of the returned IDs, distinguishing this user-lookup tool from the issue/content tools in its sibling group. No ambiguity about what the tool produces or why it is useful.
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 says the returned accountIds are what assignee/reporter fields need, giving an agent clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to route an agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.