QuintaDB

list_portal_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

List of the portal's users (clients registered in the portal)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>",
      "portal_id": "<portal_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_portal_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number for pagination (starts at 1)
`app_id`	Yes	Project ID (from list_projects)
`per_page`	No	Max 200
`portal_id`	Yes	Portal ID from describe_project or list_projects

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / per_page / description
```
Previous value: -"Макс 200"New value: +"Max 200"
```

changedInput schema / properties / portal_id / description

Previous value: -"ID порталу з describe_project або list_projects"New value: +"Portal ID from describe_project or list_projects"

First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the users are clients registered in the portal and does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is concise, though very terse and does not structure any additional context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description plus the fully documented schema and safety annotations are largely sufficient. It could say a bit more about what the returned user list contains, but no critical calling information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and all four parameters are documented in the schema, including pagination and the origins of app_id and portal_id. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource specifically: portal users, clarified as clients registered in the portal. It is clear what is being listed, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings such as list_portal_groups or list_user_roles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_portal_groups, invite_portal_user, or update_portal_user. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource scope.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All QuintaDB tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?