Skip to main content
Glama
WYRE-AI

gorelo-mcp

by WYRE-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gorelo_list_users

Read-only

Lists service provider technicians with cursor pagination and optional status filtering, returning users sorted by ID ascending for paginated browsing.

Instructions

Lists users (technicians) for the service provider using cursor pagination. Results are sorted by user id ascending (oldest first).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous page; omit for the first page.
pageSizeNoNumber of items per page. Clamped to 1–200 (default 50).
statusIdsNostatus ids: Pending=1, Active=2, Disabled=3. Omit for Pending and Active - disabled users are listed only when 3 is named.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / pageSize / description
      Previous value: -"Items per page, clamped 1-200 (default 50)."New value: +"Number of items per page. Clamped to 1–200 (default 50)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / pageSize / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • addedInput schema / properties / statusIds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "status ids: Pending=1, Active=2, Disabled=3. Omit for Pending and Active - disabled users are listed only when 3 is named.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest, and it does add real behavior: cursor-based paging and an id-ascending 'oldest first' sort that tells an agent results are stable and deterministic. It still omits how the next cursor is surfaced in the response and any auth/rate-limit context, which keeps it off a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource and paging model front-loaded and the sort behavior immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool this covers what is needed to make a first call, and there is no output schema to explain. The gap is pagination continuation: with cursor paging and no output schema, the description never says how the next cursor is returned, which is the one thing an agent must know to page through users.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the cursor, the 1–200 clamp with default 50, and the Pending=1/Active=2/Disabled=3 status semantics in more detail than the description. The description's only added semantic is the result ordering, so this sits at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Lists users (technicians)'), scopes it to the service provider, and adds pagination and ordering details. It stops short of any explicit differentiation from sibling list tools, but no sibling covers users, so ambiguity is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating technicians, and the ordering note hints at a stable paginated scan. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative for fetching a single user or filtering users.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools