fynk MCP

List account users

list-account-users

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a list of the account users (the people who can log in to this fynk account).

Use this tool when:

You need an account user's uuid, e.g. to add them to a team via attach-account-users-to-team
The user refers to a colleague by name and you need to match them to an account user
The user asks who is part of the account

Returns each account user's uuid, first_name, last_name, and email. Only the account users the current user is allowed to see are returned: most users see everyone in the account, but 'limited manager's only see themselves and the members of their own teams. So this list is not necessarily the full set of people in the account - avoid presenting it as complete.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list-account-users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_users`	No	The account users visible to the current user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: results are permission-scoped, with 'limited managers' seeing only themselves and their own teams, and it explicitly warns the agent not to present the list as complete. That is the kind of caveat an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a tight bulleted when-to-use block, then the return/visibility caveat. Slightly wasteful in that it enumerates return fields (uuid, first_name, last_name, email) that an existing output schema already conveys, but the remaining text all earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: why to call it, what it yields, and the critical limitation that the list may be partial due to manager-level visibility. Nothing material is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance, keeping the focus on scope and return content.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a list of the account users') and immediately disambiguates the resource with a parenthetical definition ('the people who can log in to this fynk account'), which separates it from list-account-team-members and get-user-info. An agent can identify this as the account-wide user roster without opening any schema.

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?

Three explicit 'Use this tool when' bullets cover the main triggers (need a uuid, name-to-user matching, roster questions) and one bullet routes to a concrete downstream sibling, attach-account-users-to-team. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it — e.g. versus list-account-team-members for team-scoped membership — so the alternative-selection guidance is clear but not complete.

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

All fynk MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?