Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Files.com MCP Server

Files.com MCP Server

Official
by Files-com
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List User

List_User
Read-only

Retrieve a list of users from Files.com, optionally selecting specific fields to display for efficient user management.

Instructions

List Users

Tool call template

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": "List_User"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoOptional list of attribute names to include as columns in the response table. When omitted, a sensible default set is used. Useful for narrowing wide entities or surfacing fields not in the default.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.65

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, pagination, rate limits). With annotations carrying the burden, this is minimal but not misleading.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Two-word description is extremely short but at the cost of completeness. While concise, it fails to earn its place by adding value; it is under-specification rather than conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (list with optional fields) and presence of output schema, a longer description could clarify usage scope and sibling differentiation. Current description is inadequate for context completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'fields' is fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Description is 'List Users', a tautology that simply restates the tool name. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., retrieve all users, filter, paginate) or distinguish it from siblings like List_Group or List_Bundle.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling list tools (List_Group, List_Bundle, List_Permission, etc.), the description provides no context for selection or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools