List provisioned ESET PROTECT tenant users and filter by email, display name, group, protection status, or license state to identify accounts needing attention.
List ESET Business Account users provisioned into this ESET PROTECT tenant, with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| pageSize | No | ||
| pageToken | No | ||
| displayName | No | ||
| userGroupUuid | No | ||
| protectionStatus | No | ||
| hasCloudOfficeMsLicense | No | ||
| cloudOfficeTenantReference | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful scope information ('provisioned into this tenant') and indicates that filters are optional, while 'List' implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, filter combination semantics, or response shape, which are modest gaps for a list operation.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, and filtering intent are all present. Every clause earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a straightforward list 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?
Given eight optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this short description is too thin. It leaves pagination, filter combination behavior, and parameter semantics unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently construct non-trivial filter calls. The description gives a clear purpose but not enough operational context for correct invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the eight parameters but merely labels them as 'optional filters.' It does not clarify how filters combine, what pageToken/pageSize do, or what protectionStatus values mean. The bare field names and enum provide type-level hints only, leaving the agent to infer actual filtering semantics.
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?
Employs a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('ESET Business Account users provisioned into this ESET PROTECT tenant') plus optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_user and batch_get_users, which target specific users rather than listing a collection. The null title does not hurt because the description supplies full clarity.
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?
The description implies use when an agent needs a set of users rather than a single user, and notes that filters are optional. However, it does not explicitly name when to prefer get_user or batch_get_users, nor does it describe scenarios where this list tool should not be used. It provides usable context but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.