List the users of the account (ids needed as user_id for time entries and tasks).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, 1-based (default 1). Use next_page from the previous reply. | |
| order_by | No | Field to sort by, e.g. document_date. Must be used together with order_direction. | |
| page_size | No | Results per page, 1-100 (default 100). | |
| order_direction | No | Sort direction. Must be used together with order_by. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, result size, or what happens with no users. The id-lookup note is a usage hint, not behavioral disclosure.
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 short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the practical motivation attached; nothing wasted or buried.
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 paginated list with no output schema, annotations covering the safety profile, and fully documented params, the description is nearly sufficient. Only the return shape and pagination flow are left implicit.
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%, so paging and ordering semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which makes baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the users of the account') and clarifies the downstream value of the returned ids. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling papierkram_get_user, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Gives a clear use case: call this when you need user_ids for time entries or tasks. It lacks any exclusion or explicit comparison to papierkram_get_user, which would be required for a 5.
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.