Retrieve a list of users from your Datadog account to manage access permissions and monitor user activity across your monitoring environment.
List users
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "users_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List users' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes all fields or a subset, or has any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'List users', which efficiently conveys the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential information. This is a model of brevity for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or authentication needs, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. While minimal, it should provide more context for a read operation in a system with many similar tools.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (since there are none), so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
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 'List users' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('users'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of listing (e.g., all users, filtered, paginated) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_users' or 'search_monitors' that might have similar functions. It's adequate but vague.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_users', 'users_get', 'search_monitors') that could potentially retrieve user data, but the description doesn't indicate any context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.