list_workspace_membersList all workspace members to resolve names to their member UUIDs, enabling accurate assignment of work items.
List every member of the configured workspace.
Useful for resolving a person's name to the member UUID expected by the
assignees field when creating or updating work items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by the word 'list', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention authentication, pagination, or permission requirements. However, for a simple listing tool, the lack of these details is not critical, and the output schema likely covers return format.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a clear use-case sentence. No redundant wording, and every sentence earns its place.
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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could mention filtering or pagination behavior, but these are not necessary for a straightforward listing tool. The description is adequate for an agent to decide when and how to call it.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets the minimum without requiring clarification.
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 clearly states the action ('List every member') and the specific resource (members of the configured workspace). It also explains the purpose (resolving names to member UUIDs for the assignees field), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_user or list_work_items.
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 a concrete use case: resolving names to UUIDs for creating/updating work items. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context makes it clear when to use this tool. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.