Lists organization members visible to the caller - the ids list_issues' assigneeId filter, and create_issue/edit_issue's assigneeId, accept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spaceKey | No | Only members visible in this space, from list_spaces. Pass it when picking an assignee for that space, so they're guaranteed to see issues there. Omit to list every member visible anywhere. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / spaceKeyAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Only members visible in this space, from list_spaces. Pass it when picking an assignee for that space, so they're guaranteed to see issues there. Omit to list every member visible anywhere.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results are scoped to members 'visible to the caller' and that the output provides ids for assignee fields. It does not mention pagination, output shape, or read-only status, but those are less critical for a simple list operation.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action, which is good. However, the second clause is grammatically tangled: 'the ids list_issues' assigneeId filter, and create_issue/edit_issue's assigneeId, accept' makes the sentence harder to parse than it should be.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and a thorough schema explanation, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It clearly states the purpose and integration with assignee fields; the main gap is the lack of an output schema or explicit return-field explanation, though 'the ids' hints at the core output.
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 sole parameter spaceKey already has 100% schema description coverage, including what happens when passed versus omitted. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already covers it fully, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opening phrase 'Lists organization members visible to the caller' clearly identifies the action and resource, and the second clause connects the result to assigneeId fields in list_issues/create_issue/edit_issue. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the other list_* siblings.
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 tells the agent that the returned ids feed list_issues' assigneeId filter and create_issue/edit_issue's assigneeId, which is a clear when-to-use signal. The schema additionally explains when to pass spaceKey. There is no explicit exclusion statement, but no obvious competing member-listing sibling exists.
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.