Retrieve Zendesk users with optional role filters and pagination to manage and analyze user data.
List users in Zendesk
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| role | No | Filter users by role | |
| per_page | No | Number of users per page (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the tool name—no mention of pagination defaults, result ordering, or what user fields are returned.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy beyond a minor overlap with the tool name. It is efficiently concise, though it could have used that brevity to add behavioral context.
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?
The tool is simple—no required parameters, no output schema, and all params documented in the schema. Still, the description omits useful context like default page size or response format, and with no output schema the agent must infer the return shape. This is minimally adequate but 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 description coverage is 100% (page, role, per_page are all documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, but the schema carries the full weight for these straightforward optional filters.
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?
The description states a specific action ('List') and resource ('users in Zendesk'), clearly identifying it as a read/list operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling list_* tools (e.g., list_tickets, list_groups), relying on the tool name to carry that differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user (for a single user) or search (for complex queries). The optional parameters (page, role, per_page) are self-evident from the schema, but the description gives no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.