simpleinout-mcp

simpleinout_list_users

Retrieve company users with filtering by name, email, group ID, or status for targeted lookup.

Instructions

List all users in the company.

    API: GET /users

    Args:
        name: Filter by name.
        email: Filter by email address.
        group_id: Filter by group ID.
        status: Filter by current status.

Tool call template

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": "simpleinout_list_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`email`	No
`status`	No
`group_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method 'GET', which implies read-only behavior, and lists filter parameters. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or response size, leaving some behavioral aspects untold.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, the API endpoint, and a clean list of parameters with one-line explanations. Every element earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with four optional filters, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. Minor gaps like pagination or ordering are not addressed, but overall the description is sufficient for a simple list operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'name: Filter by name'). This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults, though it doesn't provide details on matching behavior or allowed values.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'List all users in the company' with a specific verb and resource, and it maps to the GET /users endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_roles and list_groups by focusing on users.

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?

The description implies usage when you need to list users and optionally filter them, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user or list_user_statuses. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server