List users from Snipe-IT with optional search by name, username, or email, and filter by company or location. Supports pagination and sorting.
List users with optional search/filter
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | Search by name, username, or email | |
| company_id | No | ||
| location_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses none of the relevant behavior for a list tool — pagination defaults, result format, whether the response is a user list with fields, or how sort/order/offset behave. The description is not misleading, but it adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence that puts the verb and resource first with no wasted words. It trades completeness for brevity, but the line itself is well-structured and directly readable.
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?
This is a 7-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry a great deal of context. It does not describe the return value or result fields, pagination defaults, or any sorting/filtering behavior; complexity and gaps require much more than a 7-word description.
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 only 14% (just the 'search' param), so the description must compensate for the other six parameters. It only offers 'search/filter', which loosely hints at search/company_id/location_id but gives no meaning for sort, limit, order, or offset, and no detail on how filtering works.
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 verb and resource — 'List users' — with a scope modifier ('optional search/filter'). It is implicitly distinct from sibling tools like snipeit_users_get (single user) and snipeit_users_assets (assets), but it does not explicitly name them or call out the distinction.
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 choose this tool over alternatives such as snipeit_users_get or snipeit_users_assets. The 'optional search/filter' phrase only implies the use case; it never states when-not-to-use or points to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.