List an organization's members (user id, role, status, joined date). Any active member may read the roster. Identify the org by org_id or slug. READ-ONLY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | The organization slug (alternative to org_id). | |
| org_id | No | The organization id (from findagent_list_orgs). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| members | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds useful context beyond that by noting that active membership is the access requirement, and that org identification can be via org_id or slug. This goes beyond the structured annotation without contradicting it.
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?
Three short sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The primary action and returned fields are front-loaded, with access and identification details placed afterward.
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?
With an output schema present and read-only annotations set, the description covers the main behavioral requirements. A small gap: the schema marks both params as optional, but logically at least one of org_id or slug must be supplied; the description does not explicitly state this precondition.
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 100% with both parameters already described in the input schema. The description's note to identify the org by org_id or slug merely restates that guidance, adding no new semantic value.
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 ('List'), resource ('an organization's members'), and the returned fields (user id, role, status, joined date). This cleanly distinguishes it from member-mutating siblings like findagent_change_member_role and findagent_remove_member.
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?
Clearly scopes when to use the tool: reading an org roster, with the permission note that any active member may read it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the resource and verb make the context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a clearly scoped resource+action combination, and the versioning variants (bump_version vs repull vs reintrospect_mcp) are explicitly disambiguated by agent kind. Even with 52 tools, the descriptions make each purpose distinct enough to avoid misselection.
Nearly all tools follow the findagent_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, and families share predictable verbs like list, create, delete, edit, and submit. Minor exceptions such as findagent_preflight, findagent_whoami, and findagent_earnings keep it from perfect consistency.
At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent MCP surface. The count may reflect a broad platform, but as a single toolset it is heavy and likely to strain agent selection and context.
The surface covers publishing, versioning, knowledge bases, org management, GitHub import, purchases, and the demand board in impressive depth. However, there are notable dead ends: no unpublish/delete for a live agent, no request-fulfillment/linking action, and no org deletion or KB document update.
