linear_list_usersSearch Linear users by name, display name, or email to locate accounts for assignments and mentions. Returns a filtered list of users.
List users, optionally filtered by name, display name or email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds that results can be filtered by name, display name, or email. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or rate-limit behavior, but for a simple read-only list this is acceptable.
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?
The entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the primary action first and then adds optional filter behavior, earning its place.
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 simple read-only list with optional filter and limit parameters, the description plus schema and annotations cover the essential information. It does not describe return structure, but no output schema exists and the result of listing users is evident.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the query parameter matches name, display name, or email. The limit parameter is adequately specified by its name, schema type, default, minimum, and maximum.
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?
The description uses a specific verb (List) and resource (users), and adds filter semantics (name, display name, email) that make the tool's function concrete. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_get_viewer and the 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'List users, optionally filtered...' gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, and the sibling toolset makes comparison straightforward. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.