list_peopleLists who has access to a site: people with roles (owner, Site Developers, Site Viewers), pending invites, users, a pending transfer and protection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| people | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "people": {
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / site / descriptionRemoved value: -"Site name"Input schema / properties / site / descriptionPrevious value: -"Site name, e.g. brave-otter-4821"New value: +"Site name"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": {},
- "properties": {
- "agent_message": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "confirm_token": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "error": {
- "description": "On failure (isError): {code, message}"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming what the listing surfaces (roles, pending invites, pending transfer, protection), but says nothing about access requirements for the call or how large result sets are handled.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the enumeration of contents following. Slightly list-heavy but no wasted clauses.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the tool is low complexity with one parameter. The remaining gap is the site identifier format and any prerequisite access level, which the description leaves unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what form the 'site' value takes (ID vs. domain vs. workspace-qualified name), which is the one thing an agent could get wrong here. With a single undocumented required parameter, the description had the burden and did not carry it.
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 (lists) and resource (who has access to a site) and enumerates the contents: roles, pending invites, users, pending transfer, protection. That distinguishes it from sibling mutations like add_people, remove_people, and invite_users, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_site, invite_users, or remove_people. An agent must infer from the verb 'lists' that this is the read path and the others are the write paths.
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.