local_usersRetrieve bounded local account metadata for auditing and identity checks without exposing passwords, hashes, or credential material.
Return bounded local account metadata. Passwords, password hashes and credential material are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| users | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond them by stating output is 'bounded' and that passwords/hashes/credentials are never returned, which is a security-relevant guarantee the annotations do not express. It still says nothing about ordering, pagination, or count of accounts.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the credential-exclusion guarantee is stated immediately after the purpose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the credential exclusion is a useful addition. However, for a tool with a zero-documented, unbounded-looking parameter and no usage routing vs three neighbouring account tools, the description leaves clear gaps.
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 0% and the single 'limit' parameter (max 300) is only obliquely implied by the word 'bounded'. The description does not state the bound or the default, so the schema's maximum/minimum constraints carry the load.
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 ('Return bounded local account metadata'), which is clear enough to distinguish from local_groups and local_admins. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or say how the accounts differ (local vs domain, admin vs all).
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent when to pick this over local_admins or local_groups, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.