kimai-mcp-server

List Kimai Users

kimai_list_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a paginated list of Kimai users accessible with the current API token. Supports markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

List Kimai users visible to the API token from /api/users. This tool is read-only.

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": "kimai_list_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Kimai API page number for paginated endpoints.
`size`	No	Kimai API page size. Kimai supports a maximum size of 500.
`response_format`	No	Output format: markdown for human-readable summaries, json for structured output.	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's mention of 'read-only' adds no new information. With annotations present, the description meets the minimum bar but does not provide additional context like response content or auth requirements.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key trait (read-only). Every word is necessary and no filler exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description provides minimal context. It lacks details about return values, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, and how results are ordered. With no output schema, more context would improve completeness.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool lists Kimai users visible to the API token, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'users'. It is distinct from sibling tools like kimai_get_user (single user) but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kimai_get_user or other list tools. It only mentions it's read-only, which is already covered by annotations.

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