list_usersRetrieves up to 1,000 users under a Purelymail account so you can review or audit mailbox users.
Lists all users under the account (up to 1000).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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 one genuinely useful behavioral fact, the 1000-result ceiling, but does not say whether results are truncated, paginated, sorted, or whether inactive users are included. That leaves the most consequential behavior for a capped list tool undisclosed.
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 sentence with the resource and the result cap front-loaded, and no filler wording. Nothing in it could be cut without losing information.
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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly adequate, but it omits what the agent most needs to know about a capped listing: what happens past 1000 users and what fields each user record contains. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gap is modest rather than severe.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 ('Lists all users under the account'), which is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like create_user or delete_user by verb alone. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from get_user or modify_user, so an agent must infer that this is the bulk-enumeration counterpart.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as get_user for retrieving a single record. The only usage-relevant signal is the '(up to 1000)' cap, which hints at a bulk scope but is not framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.