Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Microsoft Graph MCP Server

by ry-ops
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_user

Search Microsoft 365 users by display name or email to find matching accounts and retrieve identity records.

Instructions

Search for users by display name or email

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "search_term": "<search_term>"
    },
    "name": "search_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
search_termYesThe search term to look for in display names or emails

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs exact, case sensitivity), result caps/pagination, or what the response contains. For a read-only lookup this is a meaningful gap, though the operation is low-risk by nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it could have used the saved space for a disambiguation clause.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema fully documents the only parameter and no output schema exists, so little is strictly required. Still, an agent gets no signal about match behavior or result limits, which are the main unknowns for a search endpoint.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'The search term to look for in display names or emails' — essentially identical to the description's phrasing. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work and the description adds nothing new.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for users') plus the fields searched (display name or email), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_users or get_user, which matters in a crowded user-management namespace.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says this is for partial/fuzzy lookup versus get_user for exact identifiers, or list_users for enumeration. The agent must infer the selection rule from the sibling names alone.

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