tick_list_usersList the users of the Tick subscription (id, name, e-mail, timezone). A non-administrator sees only themself. Use deleted=true for removed users who still have time entries (administrators only). GET /users.json or /users/deleted.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 (default 1; 100 records per page). Pass the previous reply's next_page. | |
| deleted | No | true = deleted users that have time entries. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses the authorization-dependent result set (a non-administrator sees only themself) and the admin-only restriction on the deleted listing — real behavioral context the annotations cannot express. It does not cover pagination behavior, which the schema handles.
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?
Three tight sentences: purpose and returned fields first, then permission semantics, then the deleted variant. No filler, and the raw endpoints are a compact routing hint for an API-aware agent.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields, the permission-scoped result set, the deleted-mode behavior and the backing endpoints. Pagination is documented in the schema's page parameter, so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema omits: the deleted flag is administrators-only. It also confirms what a deleted listing returns.
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 Tick subscription') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, e-mail, timezone). It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling list_* tools, which target clients, entries, projects and tasks.
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 concrete selection context: use deleted=true for removed users who still have time entries, and notes that path is administrators-only. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the sibling set covers entirely different resources, so no disambiguation is required.
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.