List service provider technicians with cursor pagination, sorted by user ID ascending. Use the cursor for subsequent pages and pageSize to control result count.
List users (technicians) for the service provider, cursor-paginated, sorted by user id ascending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous page; omit for the first page. | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page, clamped 1-200 (default 50). |
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 behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits beyond the schema: 'cursor-paginated' and 'sorted by user id ascending' are real behavioral details. However, it does not address read-only safety, authentication, rate limits, or response shape, though 'list' does imply a read 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 entire description is one information-dense sentence with no filler. Each clause adds value: the resource type, the scope, the pagination mode, and the sort order are all front-loaded and immediately useful.
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-oriented list tool with zero required parameters, the description covers the essential operational details: what is listed, for whom, how pagination works, and the sort order. It does not describe the return envelope's cursor field, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.
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% and all parameters are already well documented: cursor is described as opaque and used from a previous page, and pageSize has clamping/default information. The description's 'cursor-paginated' loosely reinforces that, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus a clear resource ('users (technicians)') and scope ('for the service provider'), so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does. It also states pagination and ordering, which further distinguishes it from the many other list tools like gorelo_list_clients or gorelo_list_contacts.
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 resource label makes the intended use imply 'when you need users/technicians,' but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or mentions any exclusions. It provides no direct guidance about sibling tools or scenarios where a different list tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.