Search linked users by display name or role, with an optional result limit, to find accounts for LINE bot operations.
Search linked users (line_users) by display name and/or role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Case-insensitive substring of display_name | |
| role | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is readOnlyHint=true, which the description neither confirms nor enriches. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the purpose statement — nothing about matching behavior, result ordering, pagination via limit, or what a lookup failure looks like.
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?
A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing extraneous, nothing buried.
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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what', but it omits the return shape and how the limit interacts with total results, and it does not compensate for the 33% parameter coverage. Adequate at minimum, not complete.
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 low (33%): only 'name' is documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by clarifying that name and role filters combine ('and/or'), but it leaves role matching semantics (exact vs. substring, allowed values) and limit behavior unexplained, so half the parameters remain under-specified.
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?
States a specific verb (Search) and resource (linked users / line_users) plus the filter fields (display name and/or role). No sibling tool overlaps with user lookup, so no differentiation is needed, but the description stops short of full specificity (e.g., what 'linked' means or what the result set contains).
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?
Usage is implied by the query semantics ('search ... by display name and/or role'), so an agent can infer this is the tool for looking up LINE users. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to any alternative lookup path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.