missive_list_usersList users (team members). Missive: GET /users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return. | |
| offset | No | Number of records to skip (offset pagination). | |
| organization | No | Filter to an organization id. |
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, so description adds minimal value. It mentions the HTTP method but no additional behaviors like pagination or rate limits. No contradiction with 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?
Very concise single sentence with necessary info. No waste, but could add a bit more context without being verbose.
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?
Simple tool but lacks details on default ordering, pagination behavior, or return format. Incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.
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%, so parameters are fully described in the input schema. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema 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 clearly states 'List users (team members)', using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like missive_list_contacts or missive_list_conversations by naming 'users'.
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 vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context for usage.
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 unique resource-action combination (e.g., missive_get_contact vs missive_list_contacts). There is no overlap in functionality; the purposes are clearly distinct.
All tool names follow a strict 'missive_verb_noun' pattern in lowercase snake_case. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, and update, applied consistently across resources.
With 19 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still reasonable for covering multiple resources like contacts, conversations, messages, and lists. Each tool serves a specific purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
Core workflows are covered: listing, getting, creating contacts/drafts, managing conversations, and viewing sub-items. Minor gaps exist (no update for contacts, no delete for any resource), but these are acceptable for an initial release.