Find journal users by name, email, status, or role to locate editors, reviewers, authors, and other accounts for management or review workflows.
Find a journal's users by name/email, status, and role.
status: active (default), disabled, all.
role: site_admin, manager, sub_editor, reviewer, assistant,
author, reader, subscription_manager.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| phrase | No | ||
| status | No | active | |
| journal | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, search matching semantics, whether journal is required or inherited from context, or what the response contains. Some parameter values are listed, but that is semantic rather than behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, and the parameter value lists are concise and scannable. There is no redundant filler.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description leaves important gaps: it is unclear whether journal is required or defaults to current context, what the response shape is, and how limit/pagination behaves. The ambiguity around a journal-scoped search with an optional journal parameter makes this incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide useful allowed values for status and role, and the first sentence suggests phrase searches name/email. However, the limit and journal parameters are not explicitly explained beyond their names, leaving partial rather than complete compensation for the missing schema documentation.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('a journal's users'), and the filter dimensions (name/email, status, role). It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like list_reviewers, but the search/filter framing makes its purpose reasonably distinct.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use search_users versus alternatives such as list_reviewers or list_journals. The description implies general search usage but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.