Skip to main content
Glama

list_workspace_members

Read-onlyIdempotent

Workspace Analytics & Billing: everyone who belongs or ever belonged to ONE Enterprise workspace, including people who left and people who never ran anything. Needs a workspace reporting key (wdr_report_…, made by the workspace Owner) for that workspace, or your own sign-in as its Owner or Admin (everyone) or Member (only your own row). Returns data (one row per person) + meta. Each row: user_id, email, name (both as they are today), role (owner/admin/member/viewer; for someone who left, the role they had when they left), status (active or left), team = their team now ("unclassified" when they have none), team_history = every team they were put in, oldest first: team, team_id, effective_from (null = their first team, which also covers everything they did before it was set), effective_to (null = still that team), assigned_at, assigned_by (user id); last_used_at = when they last sent a run in this workspace (a job, or a step charged outside jobs; null = never); membership_periods = each period they belonged: joined_at, left_at (null = still a member; joined_at null = they joined before the workspace audit log recorded joins, see meta.missing_fields). A report split by team puts each run in the team its person was in when the run finished. Times are ISO 8601 in Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh (+07:00). Free; at most 60 calls a minute per key or person. The same report as CSV: GET /api/v1/workspaces/{workspace_id}/reports/list_workspace_members?format=csv.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspace_idYesThe workspace: the one the reporting key belongs to, or one you are a member of.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond the annotations, including the complete return structure (`data` + `meta`), specific meanings for every field (e.g., `status`, `team_history`, `membership_periods`), rate limits (60 calls a minute), and timezone context (Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh).

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The tool description is an extremely dense, multi-paragraph technical specification that is neither concise nor well-structured for an AI agent. It functions more like a reference manual page than a simple tool explanation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given that no output schema is provided, the description is exhaustively complete. It defines every data point returned, including complex nested objects like `membership_periods` and operational constraints like rate limits and time zones.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description clarifies the critical context of the `workspace_id`, explaining it must be one tied to the reporting key or one the user specifically owns/is a member of. This context is vital for correct invocation and permission handling.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: listing workspace members. It distinguishes its scope from a standard list by specifying it includes members who have left and those who never ran anything, indicating a deep auditing function.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

While it doesn't name specific alternatives, it defines its use case as a comprehensive, historical report suitable for auditing. This level of scope definition strongly suggests *when* to use it relative to simple member checks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources