usersFetch a paginated list of fake users from DummyJSON. Supports limit, skip, and field selection via select. Returns name, email, age, address, company, and role fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| select | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of users skipped | |
| limit | No | Limit of users returned | |
| total | No | Total user count | |
| users | No | List of users |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "skip": 0
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "limit": {
+ "description": "Limit of users returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "skip": {
+ "description": "Number of users skipped",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total user count",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "users": {
+ "description": "List of users",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "email": {
+ "description": "Email address",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "firstName": {
+ "description": "First name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "gender": {
+ "description": "Gender",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "User ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "image": {
+ "description": "Profile image URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "lastName": {
+ "description": "Last name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "phone": {
+ "description": "Phone number",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "username": {
+ "description": "Username",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context by stating data source (DummyJSON), pagination support, and specific return fields, complementing annotations without contradiction.
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 concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds value without waste.
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 the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) and output schema existence, the description covers the core functionality. It omits pagination behavior details like default/max limit, but the explicit mention of paginated list and parameters makes it mostly complete for a simple read 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'limit, skip, and field selection via `select`' but provides no details about parameter constraints, format, or behavior (e.g., max limit, skip offset semantics, select format). This is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters.
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 specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'paginated list of fake users from DummyJSON', clearly distinguishing it from a single 'user' tool among siblings. It also lists supported parameters and return fields.
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?
While the description implies use for fetching a list of users, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'user' or provide criteria for when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple tools for data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) that differ only in nuance, and the inclusion of both DummyJSON and Pipeworx tools creates confusion about which domain to use for what. Agents will struggle to select the correct tool.
Naming conventions are mixed: Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (verb_noun like 'validate_claim', noun like 'entity_profile', verb like 'forget'), while DummyJSON tools use simple nouns (posts, comments). No consistent pattern across the set.
43 tools is excessive for a server named 'Dummyjson'. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to fake data, making the set feel bloated and unfocused. The count is too large for the apparent scope.
For a fake data API, the set is incomplete: it only provides read operations (fetch, search) with no create, update, or delete capabilities. However, for the Pipeworx portion, the read coverage is extensive, so it's not severely lacking overall.