harvest_list_usersList users in the account, optionally filtered by active status or updated-since. Paginated. Harvest REST: GET /users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) for pagination. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (1–2000, Harvest default 2000). | |
| is_active | No | Only active (true) or archived (false) users. | |
| updated_since | No | Only users updated since this ISO-8601 datetime. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description adds that the operation is paginated and supports optional filters (active status, updated_since), plus the underlying REST endpoint. This gives the agent behavioral context beyond the annotation without overexplaining.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the core action ('List users'), then adds filters, pagination, and the REST endpoint. 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 simple list tool with 4 optional params and no output schema, the description covers the main semantics (filters, pagination) and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. It doesn't describe the response shape, but the act of 'listing users' implies a user collection, and the presence of other metadata compensates.
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 provides 100% coverage for all four parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'active status or updated-since' and 'Paginated' reinforces the param semantics, adding a slight extra layer of clarity.
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 clearly states the tool lists users in the account, using the verb 'list' with a specific resource. It differentiates from sibling list tools (clients, projects) by naming 'users' and also mentions optional filters and pagination, reinforcing the exact purpose.
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 provides clear context: use this to list all or filtered users in the account. Though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the sibling tools are for different resources, and the description's focus on users makes the appropriate use case apparent. No exclusion criteria are given, but they aren't necessary here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.