List users from the Firebase Auth emulator to inspect local authentication data, with an optional limit.
List users from Auth emulator
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": "auth_list_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing details such as pagination through the limit parameter, default behavior, return format, or any required authentication. This is essentially a restatement of the tool's name.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, delivering the core message without any fluff. While it is brief, conciseness itself is excellent.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not explain the limit parameter's effect, whether the result is a complete list or truncated, or how it differs from auth_get_user. The description is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.
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 input schema includes a limit parameter with a default of 50, but the description does not mention it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to add any meaningful context about how the parameter works or when to override the default.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('users from Auth emulator'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool auth_get_user, which implies a single-user lookup. It unambiguously communicates the action and scope.
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 like auth_get_user. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or context for choosing list over get operations. The description offers no strategic selection help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.