List who is on the caller's TomeVault workspace and which invitations are still outstanding. Returns roles and join dates, not the email addresses of people who have already joined.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns roles and join dates, and explicitly excludes email addresses of joined members, preventing an agent from assuming that information is included.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second adds return scope and a key limitation. Every word 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the key facts: what is listed, what fields are returned, and what is intentionally omitted. Without an output schema, it could optionally describe formatting or entry structure, but the essentials are present and no critical invocation detail is missing.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are fully trivially handled by the empty schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('members on the caller's TomeVault workspace'), and also clarifies the scope by including outstanding invitations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_vault_items and get_workspace_status by focusing on membership data and explicitly noting what it returns.
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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever an agent needs workspace membership or outstanding invitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as get_workspace_status or invite_member, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
