Retrieve a list of organization users with pagination and optional substring search.
List organization users.
Params:
page (int, default 1)
limit (int, default 100)
search (str, optional): substring query
Returns: Sensr /v1/organizations/users response
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| search | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination defaults (page=1, limit=100) and that search is a substring query, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether pagination is complete, maximum limits, sorting order, or rate limiting. The return type is stated as a Sensr API response but with no details on structure (though output schema exists).
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: a one-line purpose, a bullet list of parameters with types and defaults, and a return note. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.
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?
The tool is a simple list endpoint with 3 optional parameters and an output schema, so repetitive return-structure explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the basics, but lacks guidance on pagination behavior (e.g., if all pages must be fetched or if limit is capped) and when to use this versus specific lookup tools. Given the simplicity, this is mostly 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?
The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must and does add meaning. It explains 'search' as a substring query, which is not apparent from the schema. For page and limit, it only lists names/defaults that the schema already provides, but the description at least consolidates the intent. It adds genuine value for the search parameter.
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 clearly states 'List organization users.', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_by_email or search_user, which target specific users. Scope is explicitly 'organization users'.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and parameters: it lists users (potentially paginated). However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over search_user, get_user_by_email, or get_user_profile. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.