List the users in a bulk job.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"job_id": "<job_id>"
},
"name": "list_bulk_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor | |
| job_id | Yes | The bulk job ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent with that. The description adds the scoping to a bulk job but does not disclose pagination, result contents, or ordering. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriching.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, and every word contributes to understanding the operation.
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 simple read-only list operation with a required job_id and an optional cursor described in the schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It does not mention the response shape (no output schema is present) or link to related bulk-job tools, but the core calling context is present.
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 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that job_id refers to a bulk job and adds no new syntax or meaning beyond what is in the input schema. The baseline of 3 applies.
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 a clear resource ('users in a bulk job'), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_bulk_job and add_bulk_users. However, it does not clarify what a bulk job is or which users are included, keeping it just below a perfect score.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bulk_job, list_tenant_users, or list_audience_members. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and job_id parameter, with no explicit context or exclusions.
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.