warp-mcp

List team members

team_list_members

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all team members with their assigned roles, sorted by email. Use it to view team composition or find a user UUID for updating or removing a member.

Instructions

List every user holding a role in this customer, alphabetical by email. Use to see who is on the team and which role each member holds, or to find a user UUID for team_update_member_role / team_remove_member. Requires the team:read scope.

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": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>"
    },
    "name": "team_list_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`customer_id`	Yes	Your customer UUID (shown in the WARP portal under Settings)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying alphabetical ordering, scope requirement, and that it returns every user. No contradictions; behavior is well-explained.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: output format, usage examples, and scope requirement. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool (one param, read-only), the description covers purpose, ordering, scope, and usage ties to siblings. It lacks output format details (e.g., keys returned), but for a minimal tool this is adequate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains customer_id. The description adds no additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 3 for tools with full schema coverage.

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 the tool lists every user holding a role in a customer, sorted alphabetically by email. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_list_roles (which lists roles) and team_remove_member (which removes a member).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit use cases: seeing team membership and finding a user UUID for follow-up actions. It also mentions the required scope (team:read). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context of sibling tools implies alternatives.

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

Deploy Server