jcm_lookupUserLook up a Jira user by email address to retrieve account ID, display name, email, and active status for assignments, searches, or user verification.
Look up a Jira user by email address. Returns [{accountId, displayName, email, active}].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address of the user to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape ([{accountId, displayName, email, active}]) despite there being no output schema. It does not say what happens when no user matches, which keeps it from a 5.
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 with zero filler; the lookup action is front-loaded and the return contract follows immediately.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return fields, which is what an agent needs to call it. The only meaningful gap is the no-match/empty-result behavior.
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 email parameter is documented with format: email, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by email address' without adding matching semantics (exact vs partial, case sensitivity).
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 (look up) and resource (Jira user) with the key selector (by email address), which implicitly separates it from jcm_getCurrentUser. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied by 'look up a user by email address' — an agent can infer this is the tool for resolving an email to an accountId. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over jcm_getCurrentUser, and no mention of failure behavior or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.