Search Jira Server/Data Center users by username, display name, or email substring to find accounts for issue assignment or mentions.
Search users (Server matches on username, not accountId)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | substring matched against username, display name and e-mail | |
| maxResults | No | page size; Jira defaults to 50 on Server/DC |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safe-read profile, the description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait: on Jira Server the match is against username rather than accountId, which changes how results should be interpreted. It still says nothing about result caps, paging behavior beyond the schema note, or what a match 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It is arguably too terse for the crowded user-related sibling set, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage, the essential mechanics are covered. The notable gap is routing: with jira_get_user, jira_get_current_user, find_jira_user, and jira_search_assignable all present, the description does not tell the agent which user-lookup tool to choose.
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 100%, so both 'query' and 'maxResults' are already documented in the schema. The description's Server/username caveat adds a small amount of meaning about how 'query' is matched, but does not supplement the page-size or matching-format details beyond what the schema states.
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 (Search) and resource (users), so the agent knows this is a lookup operation rather than the single-user fetch of jira_get_user. However, it does not distinguish itself from other user-searching siblings such as find_jira_user or jira_search_assignable, leaving the agent to guess which search variant applies.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer jira_get_user, jira_get_current_user, find_jira_user, or jira_search_assignable over this tool. The parenthetical about Server vs Cloud matching is a behavioral note, not a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.