Standard Metrics MCP Server

list_users

Retrieve a list of all users associated with your firm. Filter by email and paginate results to manage user data efficiently.

Instructions

List all users associated with your firm.

Args: email: Filter by user email page: Page number for pagination (default: 1) per_page: Results per page (default: 100, max: 100)

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": "list_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	No
`page`	No
`per_page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains pagination parameters but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits or potential side effects. The behavior is fairly transparent 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 minimal and efficient: one sentence for purpose followed by a structured args list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input parameters well but omits details about return format, error handling, or sorting. For a list tool, this is a notable gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant meaning: 'email: Filter by user email', 'page: Page number for pagination (default: 1)', 'per_page: Results per page (default: 100, max: 100)'. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'List all users associated with your firm', providing a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_companies) by specifying 'users'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_companies or other list tools. The description implies basic usage for listing users but lacks comparative context or exclusions.

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