List all members of the workspace with their roles and join dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| members | Yes | Oldest first |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / members / descriptionPrevious value: -"Workspace members, oldest first"New value: +"Oldest first"Output schema / properties / members / items / properties / email / descriptionRemoved value: -"Email address"Output schema / properties / members / items / properties / joinedAt / descriptionRemoved value: -"When the member joined"Output schema / properties / members / items / properties / name / descriptionRemoved value: -"Display name"Output schema / properties / members / items / properties / role / descriptionPrevious value: -"Workspace role (owner | member | viewer)"New value: +"owner | member | viewer"Output schema / properties / members / items / properties / userId / descriptionRemoved value: -"Member user ID"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. Description adds 'roles and join dates' but this is likely covered by the output schema. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or size limits.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and key details. Every word is useful.
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?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema, description adequately covers purpose and output content. It is complete for a simple list tool.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline 3 applies as description adds no parameter information.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'members', clearly indicating output includes roles and join dates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspace.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, there are no directly competing siblings for listing members, so the need is lower. Still, it lacks any usage context.
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.