List user accounts in the SAP BusinessObjects BI platform repository with ID, username, email, disabled status, and last logon; supports pagination.
Lists user accounts in the BI platform repository (ID, username, email, disabled status, last logon).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| pagesize | No |
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' implies a read operation, but nothing states pagination behavior, result limits, permission requirements, or what happens across pages, and the two paging parameters are never acknowledged.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though it spends its brevity on output fields rather than the guidance an agent most needs.
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 values need not be enumerated in prose (making the parenthetical partly redundant). The main gap is the absence of any pagination guidance and the lack of annotation coverage for a list operation, leaving the agent to guess at paging behavior.
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 0%, so both 'page' and 'pagesize' are undocumented in the schema, and the description does not compensate by explaining paging, defaults, or max page size. The parenthetical describes return fields rather than the input 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 (Lists) and resource (user accounts in the BI platform repository), and the parenthetical enumerates the returned fields, which helps the agent distinguish it from detail-oriented siblings. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_user_details or the singular scope, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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 mention of alternatives such as get_user_details for a single account or get_group_users for group-scoped queries. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.