list_membersList this workspace’s members and roles, plus every invitation link that has not expired. Use it to identify collaborators and understand who created pages and versions. The invite_id it returns for each live invitation is the argument for revoke_invite and is available nowhere else once the invitation has been created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: it returns only non-expired invitations, and the invite_id is unavailable anywhere else after creation — an important recoverability constraint an agent can't infer from the schema.
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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core behavior then the motivating use case and the downstream dependency.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape — and it does, covering members, roles, invitation links, and the key invite_id. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description instead characterizes the returned data (members, roles, invitation links), which is the relevant semantic content here.
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?
Specific verb + resource + scope: it lists workspace members AND roles, plus unexpired invitation links. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_api_tokens, list_folders, or list_sessions.
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?
Gives explicit usage context ('identify collaborators, understand who created pages and versions') and names the downstream tool revoke_invite that consumes its invite_id. No explicit when-not guidance, but the routing is clear.
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.