userGet the customer's users as JSONL. Customer-level data (not account-filterable): returns rows only for a connector with no account restriction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountIds | No | Optional TrueClicks account ids to limit the result to (the numeric Id field from the account listing). Omit to return all accounts. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / accountIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional account IDs to limit the result to. Omit to return all accounts."New value: +"Optional TrueClicks account ids to limit the result to (the numeric Id field from the account listing). Omit to return all accounts."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The read-only nature is already covered by annotations, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying JSONL output and the 'no account restriction' scoping. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but those are not required given the annotation coverage.
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 brief, but the phrase 'returns rows only for a connector with no account restriction' is vague and confusing. It introduces ambiguity without adding clear value, so not every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple, but the contradictory statements about account filtering leave the overall behavior unclear. The description would be complete if it clarified whether accountIds is accepted and how it affects results; without that, it is not reliable.
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 schema fully documents accountIds as an optional filter, but the description explicitly says the data is 'not account-filterable'. This directly contradicts the parameter's purpose and undermines the agent's ability to decide whether or how to pass accountIds.
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 identifies the resource as the customer's users, the action as getting/listing them, and the output format as JSONL. It also distinguishes it as customer-level data, separating it from account-level 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?
It states that the data is customer-level and not account-filterable, giving clear scope and exclusions. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as user_my_accounts, so it falls short of fully explicit alternative guidance.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, but the audit and report tools (e.g., audit_rule_output_table vs audit_rule_output_table_historical vs audit_rule_result vs audit_rule_result_campaign) are closely related and rely on detailed descriptions to differentiate.
Naming is generally consistent with snake_case and domain-prefixed groups (google_ads_*, ms_ads_*, perfmon_*), though a few tools are bare nouns (account, task, user) rather than verb-led, which slightly deviates from the dominant pattern.
23 tools is on the higher end but justified for a platform covering multiple ad platforms, audit reports, alerts, and user management; it remains navigable with clear groupings.
The tool set comprehensively covers account enumeration, audit results, report execution for major ad platforms, perfmon alerts, pacing targets, tasks, and users. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no create/update/modify operations), but the core analytics and monitoring surface is well covered.