Read the selected workspace's member directory. Follow nextPage until null.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| dataAsOf | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {},
+ "dataAsOf": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does 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 structurally. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral trait that results are paginated and must be iterated via nextPage until null, which is real operational context beyond the annotations.
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, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the pagination instruction follows immediately; every clause 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description usefully points at the pagination cursor anyway. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, with only the request-parameter semantics left unexplained.
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 single `page` parameter is never explained in the description. The pagination hint ('Follow nextPage') describes the response field rather than the request parameter, so an agent gets no added meaning about what page does, how defaults apply, or the 0-4000 bound.
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 and resource ('Read ... member directory') with a clear scope ('the selected workspace's'), which separates it from the many sibling parse_dashboard_* tools that cover tasks, insights, notices, etc. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is distinctive enough to route correctly.
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 instruction 'Follow nextPage until null' gives a concrete operational loop for consuming the result, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this directory read versus adjacent dashboard reads, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a workspace must be selected).
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.