Retrieve user accounts from Supabase authentication tables to manage access permissions and monitor active sessions.
Lists users from the auth.users table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of users to return | |
| offset | No | Number of users to skip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('Lists users'), but omits details like pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. The minimal description does not compensate for missing annotations.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. While it is extremely brief, it is still efficient; however, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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 description lacks completeness for a listing tool with no output schema. It does not explain the return format (e.g., array of user objects) or mention pagination behavior beyond parameter defaults. Given the tool's relative simplicity and the 100% schema coverage, more contextual details are needed.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (limit, offset). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'users from the auth.users table', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_auth_user (single user) and create_auth_user (creation), but does not explicitly highlight this distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_auth_user or search-like tools. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.