list_workspace_membersRetrieve the list of workspace members, optionally limited by count, to identify users and manage access.
Lists the members of the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of members to return. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lists the members of the workspace' states the core operation but does not disclose any additional traits such as whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, whether results are ordered, or what the response contains. The output schema covers return shape, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious action.
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 concise sentence with no filler, repetition, or irrelevant content. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks usage context and any behavioral details. The agent can infer that it lists workspace members and can limit the count, but there is no guidance about when to choose this over other tools or what additional behavior to expect.
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 there is only one parameter, 'limit', which is already clearly documented as 'Maximum number of members to return.' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but because the schema fully covers the parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('lists') and a clear resource ('members of the workspace'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_spaces, get_current_user, and page-focused tools, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or workspace context. It is implied that this tool is for workspace members, but no explicit routing or comparison to sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.