tailscale_list_usersList all users in your Tailscale tailnet, optionally filtered by role or user type. Use it to audit members, admins, and shared-in users.
List all users in your tailnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Filter by user role | |
| type | No | Filter by user type: 'member' (direct members), 'shared' (shared-in users), or 'all' (default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, giving the agent the full safety profile. The description adds only the scope phrase 'in your tailnet', which is effectively implied by openWorldHint, so it contributes almost nothing beyond the structured metadata.
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?
A single short sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly imperfect only because 'all users' conflicts with the available role/type filters, making the brevity a touch ambiguous.
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 zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. It omits any note about pagination or result shape, which is a minor gap given no output schema is declared.
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% — both role and type have enum values plus inline descriptions — so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the filters and its phrase 'all users' arguably understates the filtering the tool supports, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (users) with scope (your tailnet), so an agent can immediately tell what it does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like tailscale_get_user, tailscale_list_user_invites, or tailscale_list_devices, relying on the name alone for that.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The description never hints that tailscale_get_user exists for a single user or that role/type filtering is possible, so routing decisions are left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.