List all MSP users in your Avanan account. Filter by a specific child MSP and use a scroll ID for pagination to efficiently handle large user directories.
List all MSP users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSPId | No | Parent MSPs only: restrict to the users of this child MSP. | |
| scrollId | No | Pagination scroll ID from a previous response. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.0Input schema / properties / MSPIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Parent MSPs only: restrict to the users of this child MSP.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}v1.1.1v1.1.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List all MSP users,' which implies a read-only operation but discloses nothing about pagination (scrollId), optional filtering (MSPId), or any permissions or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with these parameters.
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 sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.
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 list operation with optional pagination and filtering, and without an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scrollId pagination mechanism, the MSPId filtering behavior, or any expected return format, leaving an agent without enough information to call it 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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning or context about how these parameters are used together (e.g., that MSPId restricts to child MSP users). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and resource ('MSP users'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_msp_user or list_msp_partners, which is a minor gap given that resource names are self-explanatory.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, such as whether to use this for bulk listing vs get_msp_user for a single user, or any prerequisites or restrictions (e.g., parent vs child MSP).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.