List administrators for a Brivo account by account ID, with optional offset and pageSize controls for pagination.
List the administrators for an account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Skip the first N results. Default: 0. | |
| pageSize | No | Max results to return. Default: 20. Max: 100. | |
| accountId | Yes | The Brivo account id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination defaults, result ordering, whether a missing account errors or returns empty, or what fields an administrator record contains.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it may be too terse to carry the scoping information the tool actually needs.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. The notable gap is disambiguation from the closely named sibling 'List_administrators', which the agent needs in order to pick correctly.
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 100%, with offset, pageSize, and accountId all documented in the schema itself (including defaults and max). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the administrators') and scopes it to an account, which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'List_administrators', which appears to cover the same resource at a broader scope, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'List_administrators' or 'Get_administrator'. The phrase 'for an account' hints at scope but is not framed as a usage condition, so the agent gets no explicit routing rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.