Retrieve all users assigned to a specific Duo group by providing its group ID. Use this read-only tool to audit group membership and verify user access.
List the users belonging to a group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items per page (Duo default/max vary by endpoint). | |
| offset | No | Offset into the result set, for paging past the first page. | |
| groupId | Yes | Duo group_id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'List'. It does not disclose pagination behavior, return format/contents, error handling, or any access requirements. 'List' implies read-only, but little behavioral context is added beyond that.
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 focused sentence with no filler and front-loads the main action. It is concise, though slightly terse for an unannotated tool.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining return values or edge cases. It does neither; an agent may not know what the response looks like, whether pagination is automatic, or how errors are surfaced.
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 the input schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for well-covered schemas.
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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('users belonging to a group'), so an agent can infer this is a group-membership lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like duo_list_users, but the phrasing is unambiguous enough.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duo_list_users or duo_list_user_groups. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.