Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

jira_lookup_account_id

Find a Jira user's account ID by searching their name or email, with optional result limits.

Instructions

Looks up users and accountId (GET /rest/api/3/user/search).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "jira_lookup_account_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesName or email.
maxResultsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only says 'Looks up users and accountId' and names the endpoint. It does not state whether this is read-only, how search matching behaves, whether maxResults limits results, or what the response shape looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. Including the REST endpoint adds valuable precision without bloating the text.

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?

The tool is simple and the description identifies the main purpose, but it lacks guidance on when to invoke it, any caveats about search behavior, and detail about the maxResults parameter. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description alone provides only partial context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes the 'query' parameter as 'Name or email.', but the 'maxResults' parameter has no description and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Looks up') and clear resource ('users and accountId'), plus the exact REST endpoint, making the tool's function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no other sibling performs user lookup, so ambiguity is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when needing to find a user's accountId, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or provides any prerequisite context. There are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.

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