List administrator users from the Curricula API. Specify route IDs in path and filtering, pagination, or sorting in query to retrieve user data.
List administrator users. Calls GET /users. Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| path_params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states that the tool lists admin users by calling GET /users, but it does not mention authentication requirements, response shape, pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the returned list is scoped globally or per account. Beyond the bare operation, behavioral context is largely missing.
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 brief and front-loads the main purpose. The second sentence is slightly awkward ('Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query') but still compact and mostly useful. No significant filler.
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 has an output schema and a relatively straightforward list operation, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the endpoint and where to place path and query inputs. However, it does not address body usage, scoping, or how this compares with other list tools, so the overall context is only minimally complete.
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 0%, and the schema has generic object parameters only, so the description must compensate. It does add useful guidance by assigning path_ids to path_params and filtering/pagination/sorting/include values to query, which helps. However, it does not clarify what body is for or which query keys are expected, so the compensation is partial.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List administrator users' and clarifies the underlying endpoint with 'Calls GET /users.' It is clearly a read/list operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_account_admin_users or other list_account_* tools.
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 gives parameter placement advice ('Put route IDs in path_params... filtering, pagination, sorting... in query') but no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. It does not mention the similarly named list_account_admin_users sibling, which leaves selection ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.