list_reseller_usersList all usernames under a reseller account to review managed users; only reseller credentials are accepted, and regular accounts are denied.
Lists the usernames of all user accounts under the reseller. Reseller accounts only (regular accounts are refused, typically with 403) and not available while MXROUTE_USERNAME is in reseller|user form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description goes further by disclosing the failure mode (403 for regular accounts) and an ambient configuration constraint on the caller's environment. That is real behavioral context beyond structured fields.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded before the eligibility caveats. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description itself states the return content (usernames), and with zero parameters and full annotation coverage nothing else is needed to invoke it correctly.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. It does implicitly note the absence of filtering (it returns all users under the reseller), which is consistent with an empty schema.
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 (lists) and resource (usernames of all user accounts under the reseller), and the word 'all' plus the plural resource separates it from the sibling get_reseller_user. An agent can tell it apart from list_domains or list_email_accounts without opening the schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-not conditions: reseller accounts only, regular accounts are refused (typically 403), and the call is unavailable while MXROUTE_USERNAME is in `reseller|user` form. This is precisely the kind of precondition guidance that prevents misfires.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.