list-usersView all users in the world, including their role, login status, assigned character, and current scene. Filter to only active logged-in users when needed.
List the users of the world with role, whether they are logged in, their assigned character and the scene they are viewing. No passwords or access data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| onlyActive | No | Only users who are logged in now |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v14.2609.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the exact response fields and explicitly disclaiming that passwords or access data are not included, which helps an agent avoid misusing the tool for sensitive lookups.
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 that front-loads the action and resource, immediately gives the key output fields, and appends a short privacy caveat. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundancy.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the privacy boundary. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or the exact response container, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the annotations that already cover read-only behavior.
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 has 100% coverage for the single optional onlyActive parameter, including a clear description. The description's mention of 'whether they are logged in' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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'), a clear resource ('users of the world'), and enumerates the returned data (role, logged-in status, assigned character, scene). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list-* tools by targeting users rather than combats, scenes, or chat messages, and the 'No passwords or access data' caveat sharpens its 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?
The description implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs a read-only inventory of users and their current state. However, it never states explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use get-character for character details' or 'for authentication data, use another tool.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.