Skip to main content
Glama

Veqen: AI cost monitoring and protection

List members

list_members
Read-onlyIdempotent

Everyone in the organization with their role, and pending invitations (for owners and admins).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that pending invitations are included for owners and admins, indicating role-dependent visibility.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the main result: organization members and their roles. It also appends the important role-gated invitation detail without unnecessary wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly complete. It states the organization scope, returned member/role information, and role-gated pending invitations, though it could be slightly more explicit about what non-owner/admin callers see.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter claims.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the returned resource: organization members with their roles, plus pending invitations. It is specific enough to distinguish this from mutation tools like invite_member, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with other list/read tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the content: it is the tool for viewing members and pending invitations. It notes that pending invitations are visible to owners and admins, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus sibling tools such as get_account or invite_member.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources