list_membersEveryone in the account, arrived or not. Someone with status invited has been asked but has not signed in yet — they are a member row without a user, not a separate kind of thing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| members | Yes | Everyone in the account, arrived or not. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that invited members appear as member rows without users and are not separate entities. This helps the agent correctly interpret list results and avoid confusion.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and the key semantics of the invited status. No filler exists, and the most important scope information ('Everyone in the account') appears first.
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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers all essential context: what is listed, who is included, and what invited status means. Nothing needed to invoke 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing extra the description needs to explain about parameters. It appropriately doesn't invent parameter guidance where none is needed.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists everyone in the account, including invited but not-yet-signed-in members. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('members'), and the invited-status explanation distinguishes it from member mutation tools like invite_member and remove_member. The scope is unambiguous.
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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you need the full set of account members, not just active users. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling context makes the distinction obvious since all other member-related tools perform mutations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.