Skip to main content
Glama

Search users, groups and placeholder users

search_principals
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for users, groups, and placeholders by name, login, or email to obtain their IDs needed for work package assignments, watchers, time entries, and project memberships.

Instructions

Find users, groups and placeholder users, and get their ids.

This is the id-producing tool for every principal parameter in this server: assignee/responsible on work packages, watcher ids, the user_id of a time entry, and principal_id for create_membership (admin-gated: hidden unless the server sets OPENPROJECT_MCP_ADMIN_TOOLS=1). Names are never accepted where an id is wanted — resolve here first, and never guess a numeric id.

Use it to answer "who is Grace Hopper's account", "which groups exist", "who is a member of the demo project". Returns the standard list envelope: items of {id, name, type, email?, login?, status?} plus pagination{total,page,page_size,has_more} and notes.

Pitfalls. email, login and status are only returned for user principals the authenticated account may see — a null email means "not visible to you", not "no email". Group principals can hold memberships and be assigned work, so filter by type when you specifically need a person. Matching is substring-based, so a short query matches broadly; prefer the full name or the login. member_of_project filters by membership, not by whether the person ever touched the project.

Cross-references: get_user for one user's full detail; list_memberships for who holds which roles in a project; create_membership to grant access; list_roles for the role ids that grant needs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page number.
typeNoRestrict to one kind of principal. 'user' = people who log in, 'group' = user groups (assignable and grantable as a unit), 'placeholder' = licence-free stand-ins. Omit to search all three.
queryNoFree text matched against name, login and email (substring, case-insensitive). Omit it to page through every visible principal.
statusNoRestrict to an account status. 'active' is the usual filter when looking for someone to assign work to; 'locked' accounts keep old assignments but take no new ones. Groups and placeholder users have no status and are excluded when this is set.
page_sizeNoPrincipals per page, 1-100.
member_of_projectNoOnly principals who are members of this project. Numeric project id or the URL identifier; an identifier costs one extra lookup. Use it before assigning work — a user who is not a member usually cannot be assigned.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sumsNoPresent only when show_sums was requested.
itemsNoThe page of results.
notesNoDegradation markers: capped aggregations, unavailable modules, …
groupsNoPresent only when group_by was requested.
paginationYesTotal/page/page_size/has_more.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: substring matching with a warning about short queries, the meaning of null email as 'not visible to you', the fact that group principals can hold memberships and be assigned work, and the semantics of member_of_project (filters by membership, not by project contact). It even notes the admin gate on create_membership. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is logically structured: opening purpose, role in the API, example questions, return envelope, pitfalls, and cross-references. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pitfalls are grouped for readability. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a search tool with six optional parameters proven by an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the return envelope ('items of {id, name, type, email?, login?, status?} plus pagination... and notes'), explains visibility caveats, and gives cross-references to related tools. It also includes use-case guidance like checking membership before assignment. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches each one with practical meaning: it warns that substring matching makes short queries broad and recommends preferring full name or login; it clarifies that member_of_project is a membership filter, not an activity filter; it explains status restrictions and that groups/placeholders are excluded when status is set. These insights go well beyond the schema definitions and help the agent choose parameter values correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource in the first sentence: 'Find users, groups and placeholder users, and get their ids.' It goes further by positioning the tool as 'the id-producing tool for every principal parameter in this server' and listing concrete example queries ('who is Grace Hopper's account'). This clearly distinguishes it from any sibling that might seem similar.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use it to answer ...' and instructs to 'resolve here first, and never guess a numeric id.' It also provides direct alternatives in 'Cross-references: get_user for one user's full detail; list_memberships for who holds which roles in a project; create_membership to grant access; list_roles for the role ids that grant needs.' No ambiguity about selection.

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