Systems Manager

Sm User Operations

sm_user_operations

Lists system users and groups to support user and group management and access review.

Instructions

Operations for user and group management

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "sm_user_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	Action to perform. Must be one of: 'list_users', 'list_groups'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.5Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it never states that the operations are read-only (both actions are listings), nor mentions return format, pagination, permissions, or scope. The open-ended word "operations" even implies mutation capabilities that the schema does not offer, which can mislead selection.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short phrase with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns or which actions exist.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say that this lists users/groups and describe the shape of results. It does neither, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer behavior from a two-value enum.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'action' parameter already enumerates the allowed values ('list_users', 'list_groups'), so the schema does all the work. The description adds no meaning about what action values mean or their outputs, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Operations for user and group management" names the resource (users/groups) but uses a generic verb ("operations"), which largely restates the tool name 'sm_user_operations'. It is distinguishable from siblings like sm_process_operations, but the agent cannot tell from the description what is actually done. The real scope (only listing) is only discoverable in the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus sm_system_operations, sm_service_operations, or any other sibling. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the action enum in the schema.

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