oksign_list_usersThe users of the OKsign account: name, email, mobile, role, status, language and the immutable signerid (use it to tell who signed). GET /v1/users/retrieve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items to return, 1-500 (default 100). OKsign has no paging; the list is cut here. | |
| offset | No | Items to skip (default 0). Pass the previous reply's next_offset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does so by disclosing the returned fields and the immutability of signerid, but says nothing about result caps, failure modes, or whether the account scope is fixed by credentials.
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 front-loaded clause naming the returned fields plus the endpoint path; there is no filler. It is slightly clipped (no explicit verb such as 'lists') but remains compact and readable.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the response fields, which is the main completeness win. It still omits the no-paging cap and the offset/next_offset loop from the prose, leaving an agent to discover that only from the 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents limit (1-500, no paging) and offset (pass the previous next_offset) thoroughly. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource (users of the OKsign account) and enumerates the fields it returns, so an agent knows exactly what the payload contains. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, oksign_list_contacts, which also returns people records.
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 only usage instruction is embedded in a field note: 'use it (signerid) to tell who signed'. That tells the agent when a returned field matters, but gives no guidance on when to call this tool rather than oksign_list_contacts or a document-metadata tool.
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.