Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@argosvix/mcp-server

@argosvix/mcp-server

by argosvix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

list_members

Retrieve a list of team members with their email, role (admin/member/viewer), status, and join date. Read-only, excludes removed members.

Instructions

List a Team account's members (GET /v1/memberships, removed members excluded). Read-only tool returning each member's email / role (admin/member/viewer) / status / joined-at. Invitations, role changes, and removals are privilege operations and intentionally not exposed over MCP (use the dashboard, or a future approval-gate flow).

Tool call template

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_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.30.0-alpha.14

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, HTTP method and path, return fields (email, role, status, joined-at), and exclusion of removed members. No hidden side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose and endpoint, second details return fields, third clarifies excluded operations. Front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Reasonable completeness given no parameters and no output schema: describes return fields and scope. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, but acceptable for a simple list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds value by explaining tool scope and return data, though no parameter details are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it lists a Team account's members, specifies the API endpoint, and excludes removed members. Differentiates from siblings by focusing on members and mentioning exclusive operations, though not explicitly contrasting with other list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the tool is read-only and that invitations, role changes, and removals are not exposed via MCP, directing users to the dashboard. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools