jira_search_usersSearch Jira users by name, email, or username to identify assignees or collaborators. Supports pagination and configurable result limits.
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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.8.1Input 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further — no mention of match semantics, whether results are paginated by default, or what happens when the query matches nothing.
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 zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined conciseness.
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 lookup with fully described parameters and annotation-covered safety, this is adequate to invoke the tool. It still leaves gaps about result shape and paging workflow, and notably the schema's start_at description references a next_start_at parameter that does not exist — context the description could have clarified.
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 query, start_at and max_results are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior hints beyond that.
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+resource ("Search for Jira users"), so an agent immediately knows this queries the user directory rather than issues or projects. However, it offers no scope detail (e.g., matching semantics, whether it searches the whole site or a project) and does nothing to differentiate itself from the surrounding Jira siblings.
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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. An agent must infer on its own that this is the tool for resolving a user to an accountId before operations like jira_create_issue or jira_move_to_sprint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.