search_usersFind Mattermost users by username, full name, nickname, or email prefix to locate the right person for mentions, messages, or channel actions.
Find users by username, full name, nickname or email prefix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Text to search for. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of users. Default: 20. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful detail that matching spans username, full name, nickname, or email prefix, but does not mention result ordering, matching semantics, rate limits, or partial-match 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core capability and searchable fields 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?
The tool has detailed annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It is nearly complete for a search tool, though it could say more about when to prefer this over exact user lookup.
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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that the 'term' parameter searches across username, full name, nickname, and email prefix. That goes beyond the schema's generic 'Text to search for' description and helps the agent construct better queries.
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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('users') and lists the searchable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_user or search_posts, which keeps it from 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?
The description states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_user for exact lookup or search_posts for post content. It leaves the agent to infer usage entirely from the capability statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.