cursor-api-mcp

list_organization_group_members

Retrieve members of an organization group with pagination support. Specify the group ID to get a list of members in pages.

Instructions

List members of an organization group (GET .../groups/{id}/members).

Args: group_id: Organization group id (g_...). page: 1-indexed page (default 1). page_size: Members per page (default 50).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_organization_group_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`group_id`	Yes
`page_size`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (GET) and lists parameters, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, safe, or any authentication/rate limit details. It is minimally adequate for a simple list operation.

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 a clear one-liner action followed by parameter definitions in a structured docstring format. Every sentence is necessary and no information is redundant.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail the response. It covers the input parameters and endpoint adequately for a straightforward list operation. One might wish for a note on pagination behavior, but overall it is complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter: group_id format (g_...), page default and indexing (1-indexed), and page_size default. This goes beyond the raw schema. However, it could still mention that page_size has a max or that the response is paginated.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'List members of an organization group' using a specific verb and resource, and includes the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_organization_members' and 'list_organization_groups' by focusing on group membership.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or comparisons with related tools like 'list_organization_members' or 'add_organization_group_members'.

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

Deploy Server