NexTool MCP for GLPI

List users

glpi_list_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all GLPI users with optional pagination, field selection, output formatting, and dropdown expansion for user reporting and administration.

Instructions

List all users with optional pagination and dropdown expansion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`range`	No	Pagination range, e.g. 0-49
`fields`	No	Field set: 'essential' (default, trims internal GLPI fields) or 'all'
`format`	No	Output format: 'json' (default) or 'markdown' (a table for listings, key/value lines for one item; returned in both the text and the structured result)
`expand_dropdowns`	No	Expand dropdown IDs to names

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`note`	No	Pagination hint: how to fetch the next page
`count`	No	Items in this page
`format`	No	'markdown' when data holds the markdown rendering

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that pagination and dropdown expansion are optional, but does not explain defaults, result size limits, or what happens without a range. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and supported options efficiently.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for basic invocation. It could mention default field set or behaviour when no range is provided, but those gaps are partially covered by the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description merely names two of them (pagination, dropdown expansion) without adding format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear verb+resource: listing all users. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling glpi_search_user_by_email or glpi_get_user, but the intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like glpi_search_user_by_email or glpi_get_user. It only mentions the supported options, not selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server