List members of the authenticated community. Returns id (profile uuid), role, email, display_name, avatar_url, and joined_at. Filter by role to find admins/owners.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Restrict to a single role | |
| limit | No | Page size, default 20 | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip, default 0 |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists return fields and mentions the authenticated community, implying authentication. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, pagination behavior, or access restrictions beyond the auth context, so it is adequate but not rich.
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, both front-loaded with key information: the action in the first, and use case in the second. No fluff or repetition; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 list tool with three optional parameters, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the return fields, which is helpful since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination details, but these are implied by the limit/offset parameters in the schema. The core behavior and output are well-covered.
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 schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful use-case guidance for the 'role' parameter ('to find admins/owners'), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Restrict to a single role' and helps the agent understand when to apply it.
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 of the authenticated community'), clearly distinguishing it from other member-related tools like get_member or update_member. The scope is immediately clear, and it identifies the action and target unambiguously.
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?
Provides clear context: lists members of the authenticated community. It also gives a specific use case ('Filter by role to find admins/owners'), which helps with role-based queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over other list tools, but the resource scope makes it obvious.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action combination, and similar-looking tools are carefully differentiated in descriptions (e.g., get_course_structure vs list_course_modules, update_lesson vs update_lesson_content). There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools use a consistent 'hivelearn_<verb>_<noun>' pattern with common verbs (get, list, create, update). The only minor deviation is 'add' vs 'create' (add_track_course vs create_track), but this is semantically appropriate and does not disrupt the overall pattern.
With 57 tools, the server is significantly over the recommended range and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad domain (courses, community, analytics) justifies a large surface, this many tools makes selection overwhelming for agents and suggests a need for consolidation or sub-servers.
The tool surface covers create, read, and update for most core entities (courses, lessons, quizzes, tracks, posts, events, resources), plus publishing/verification and analytics. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for courses, lessons, modules, quizzes, posts, events, resources, or enrollments, and no way to remove a course from a track. These lifecycle holes are significant but not fatal for common workflows.
