Find Jira users by name, email, or username. Specify search criteria and pagination to locate accounts for assignments or mentions.
Search for Jira users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search by name, email, or username | |
| start_at | No | Index of the first result (use next_start_at to page) | |
| max_results | No | Maximum results |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Input schema / properties / start_atAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Index of the first result (use next_start_at to page)",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the tool's safety and side-effect profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the word 'search', so it neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation-provided transparency.
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 a single, clean sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 simple read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It could mention pagination via next_start_at or that query matches name/email/username, but those are already in the schema, so the description is complete enough given the structured context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents query, start_at, and max_results.
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 clearly states the action (search) and resource (Jira users), making it distinct from all sibling tools, none of which search users. It omits the specific search criteria (name, email, or username) that the schema provides, so it is clear but not maximally informative.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a user ID is needed or how this differs from listing projects or Confluence tools. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.