list_usersRetrieve Miradore users who can be assigned to devices, optionally filtered by exact email or partial name.
List Miradore users (people devices can be assigned to), optionally filtered by email or name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| rows | No | ||
| No | Exact email address. | ||
| name_contains | No | Full name contains this text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: it says nothing about pagination, default page size, result caps, or ordering, all of which matter for a list operation that can return up to 500 rows.
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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and filtering behavior in the first clause and nothing extraneous. No wasted wording.
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?
The tool is a simple read-only list with four optional parameters, so the bar is low, but the description omits that results are paginated (default page 1, 100 rows, max 500), which an agent needs to page results correctly. No output schema exists, so any note on return shape would have helped.
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 coverage is 50%: the two filter parameters carry their own descriptions (exact email, name contains), while page and rows are undocumented anywhere. The description restates the filters available but adds no meaning beyond the schema, and does not compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters.
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 and resource ("List Miradore users") and adds a clarifying gloss that users are people devices can be assigned to, which disambiguates the resource. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as create_user or get_user_device_identifiers, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
"Optionally filtered by email or name" implies when the filters apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer a different sibling (e.g. query_miradore for broader search), and no mention of prerequisite steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.