magicbell_list_usersList users (notification recipients) with cursor pagination. Project API: GET /users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items per page (cursor pagination). | |
| ending_before | No | Cursor: return items before this id (previous page). | |
| starting_after | No | Cursor: return items after this id (next page). |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds cursor pagination and the GET endpoint, but does not elaborate on rate limits, authentication, or edge cases. Minimal additional value beyond annotations.
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 concise sentences covering core functionality and pagination method. No extraneous information.
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?
Covers listing and pagination but lacks details on response format (e.g., array of users). For a simple list tool with no output schema, moderate completeness is acceptable.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description explicitly states 'List users (notification recipients)' with a specific verb and resource. Mentions cursor pagination, distinguishing it from sibling list tools for other resources.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like magicbell_get_user or search tools. Does not specify contexts 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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (create, get, list, update) with no overlap. Verbs and nouns are clearly separated.
All tools follow a consistent 'magicbell_verb_noun' pattern, with verbs (create, get, list, update) and singular/plural usage appropriate to the operation.
13 tools cover core user management, broadcast/event observability, and configuration listing without being excessive or sparse for a notification platform.
Covers user CRUD (missing delete), broadcast/event/get/list, and configuration listing. While some write operations are absent, the set supports essential admin and observability tasks.