Skip to main content
Glama
fruggr

Zendesk MCP Server by Fruggr

by fruggr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Search Zendesk Users

search_users
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find Zendesk users by name, email, role, or organization using search query syntax. Returns the total count and supports paginated results.

Instructions

Search for users by name, email, or other criteria using Zendesk search query syntax. Returns total count.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page number for offset pagination. Increment it while keeping `per_page` fixed to fetch subsequent pages; page 1 is the first page.
queryYesZendesk user search query — free text matched against name and email, and/or field filters like "email:jane@acme.com", "role:agent", "organization_id:123". A "type:user" scope is added automatically.
per_pageNoNumber of results per page for offset pagination (1-100). Pair with `page` to walk large result sets; the response header reports the total count and whether more pages remain.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.24.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Addedv2.15.0
  3. Removedv2.14.0
  4. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Previous value: -"Page number"New value: +"1-based page number for offset pagination. Increment it while keeping `per_page` fixed to fetch subsequent pages; page 1 is the first page."
    • changedInput schema / properties / per_page / description
      Previous value: -"Results per page"New value: +"Number of results per page for offset pagination (1-100). Pair with `page` to walk large result sets; the response header reports the total count and whether more pages remain."
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Search query"New value: +"Zendesk user search query — free text matched against name and email, and/or field filters like \"email:jane@acme.com\", \"role:agent\", \"organization_id:123\". A \"type:user\" scope is added automatically."
  5. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  6. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only 'Returns total count' and the note that query syntax is expected; it says nothing about pagination limits or result ordering beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb/resource and no filler. 'Returns total count' is a slightly weak closer given there is no output schema to compare against.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it only mentions the total count, leaving result shape, ordering, and pagination semantics to the schema. For a three-parameter search tool it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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%, and the schema documents page, per_page, and query syntax in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the query capabilities ('name, email, or other criteria') without adding format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for users') plus the query mechanism, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not distinguish itself from generic siblings like `search`, `search_tickets`, or `search_articles`, but the 'users' resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over the generic `search` sibling, nor when to reach for `get_user` (exact lookup) versus this query tool. The agent must infer the choice entirely.

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