list_usersList the users who are members of a company. Requires the company_id path parameter. Supports search across email, username, first/last name, display name and identity email — use it to resolve a person's name to a user_id before assigning a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the search capability across fields, but it omits return format and falsely describes the parameter location. The mention of 'search' without the schema containing it further undermines trust in the description's accuracy.
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 two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence packs a long list of search fields but remains reasonably compact and contains no filler. It earns a high score for efficiency, though the long list could be trimmed slightly.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or list contents; it does not. It also fails to clarify how to pass the search parameter (query string vs. body) and misstates the company_id parameter location. With a nested body schema, this description leaves important gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions company_id and a search parameter, but search is not present in the schema, and company_id is called a path parameter while the schema defines it inside the required body object. This creates confusion rather than clarification, making it impossible for an agent to correctly construct the request based on this description.
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 'List the users who are members of a company' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool by adding the use case of resolving a name to a user_id before assigning a task, which sets it apart from sibling list/retrieve tools.
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 provides an explicit use case ('use it to resolve a person's name to a user_id before assigning a task'), which helps with when to use. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, and it incorrectly identifies company_id as a path parameter when the schema places it in the request body, potentially misleading invocation.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.