forum_find_usersFind LOLZTEAM users by username prefix, then convert a username into a user_id for other tools. Use it when you need to resolve a forum user before further actions.
Finds LOLZTEAM users whose username starts with the given text. Use it to turn a username into a user_id for other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Beginning of the username. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: this is a prefix search rather than an exact lookup, implying multiple results may come back. It omits result ordering, match limits, and empty-result behavior.
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, zero filler, with the identification purpose front-loaded and the practical routing advice second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching rule, and the downstream use of the result. It would be stronger if it hinted at what the returned user record contains, but nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as "Beginning of the username." The description's "starts with the given text" restates that rather than adding format, case-sensitivity, or minimum-length guidance, so this is the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Finds ... users") and adds the crucial matching semantics ("whose username starts with the given text"), which distinguishes it from an exact-lookup sibling like forum_get_user. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
"Use it to turn a username into a user_id for other tools" gives concrete workflow context and the reason to reach for this tool over others. It provides no exclusions or guidance on what to do with ambiguous/multiple prefix matches, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.