Retrieve all account members with their IDs, emails, and roles to identify user assignments and permissions quickly.
List the people in the account with their ids, emails and roles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the returned fields are named, but there is no mention of pagination, ordering, inactive-user handling, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but minimal for a simple zero-parameter listing tool.
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 description is a single sentence that leads with the action and immediately specifies the resource and result fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is listed and what fields are returned. It is probably sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could be more complete by noting whether the results include all account members or only active ones.
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, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% schema description coverage. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description correctly spends its effort on output semantics and scope instead.
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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('people in the account'), and the returned fields ('ids, emails and roles'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling project-scoped tools like get_project_members by specifying account scope, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as get_member, get_project_members, or get_contacts. There are no stated exclusions or conditions, so an agent must infer the selection rule entirely from the tool name and the phrase 'in the account.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.