Mitti MCP Server

Users List Users

users_list_users

List users in your Mitti organization to retrieve user IDs, names, emails, and statuses for assigning actions.

Instructions

List users in the Mitti (formerly SafetyCulture) organization. Returns user ID, first name, last name, email, status ('active' or 'inactive' — there is no 'pending' status), and a best-effort role indicator. Useful for finding user IDs to assign to actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of users to return (1–200, default 20).
`status`	No	Filter by account status — 'active' or 'inactive'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	No
`users`	No
`next_page_token`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It warns that status is only 'active' or 'inactive' with no 'pending' status, and notes the role indicator is 'best-effort', providing important caveats about data accuracy. It does not mention pagination, but the schema covers limit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a focused three-sentence structure: action, deliverables, and a practical use-case. There is no padding, and the most important fact is front-loaded.

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 straightforward list endpoint with an output schema and two parameters, this description covers the essentials: what it returns, the status semantics, and why an agent would call it. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema's limit and the simple nature of the tool make the gap minor.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Given 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is the baseline. The description adds meaningful nuance by explicitly defining the only possible statuses and calling out that 'pending' does no, which helps agents interpret both the status filter and the returned data.

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 clearly states it lists users in the Mitti organization and lists the returned fields, making the tool's action and scope specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling users_search_users, so it's strong but not a full 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It offers an implied use case ('Useful for finding user IDs to assign to actions'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as users_search_users. The agent must infer the selection from the name and statement.

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

Deploy Server