Fetch the members assigned to a Brivo group by ID, with pagination to control result size and offset.
List the users belonging to a group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Skip the first N results. Default: 0. | |
| groupId | Yes | The Brivo group id. | |
| pageSize | No | Max results to return. Default: 20. Max: 100. |
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 behavior, ordering of results, or whether membership includes indirect/inherited users.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse to carry any additional value.
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 list tool with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits pagination semantics and how it relates to the inverse List_user_groups tool, which are the only remaining gaps.
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 and pageSize defaults/maxima documented inline and groupId described. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the users belonging to a group'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as List_user_groups (the inverse relation) or List_users, so an agent gets no help disambiguating direction.
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_users, List_user_groups, or Get_group. The description only restates the operation, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when the group is the known entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.