list_peopleRetrieve company people and their roles to identify task assignees by name. Use this when assigning kanban tasks to the right person.
People in a company, with their roles. Use their names as task assignees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No | Company id or name; optional if the agent is in only one |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile. The description adds useful return behavior by saying results include roles and usable assignee names, but it does not cover pagination, ordering, or authentication context.
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 short sentences with no wasted wording, front-loading the resource and then adding the practical usage note. Both sentences earn their place.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what is returned and how the names are used. It could be improved by mentioning pagination or result ordering, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%, so the company parameter and its optionality are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or filtering details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly identifies the resource and scope: people in a company, including their roles. It is specific enough to distinguish from task-oriented siblings and from whoami, but it does not use an explicit retrieval verb or explicitly name how it differs from sibling tools.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: use the returned names as task assignees. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as whoami, but the intended use case is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.