WeCom MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_users_by_department

List all members in a WeCom department by department ID, optionally including sub-departments, returning each user's name and UserID.

Instructions

列出部门成员 (仅返回姓名 + UserID)。

Args: department_id: 部门 ID，0=根部门 (全部成员) fetch_child: 是否递归子部门

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_users_by_department"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fetch_child`	No
`department_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output format ('仅返回姓名 + UserID') and parameter effects (department_id 0=root, fetch_child recursion). It does not mention permissions, side effects, or error behavior, but for a read-only listing tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one line for the main purpose and a two-line argument block. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and avoids all fluff. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a simple listing tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, key parameter semantics, and expected return fields. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, or error conditions, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description provides meaningful explanations for both parameters beyond the schema: department_id semantics (0=root, all members) and fetch_child behavior (recursive sub-departments). The schema itself has zero descriptions, so this fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: '列出部门成员' (list department members) and specifies output is limited to name + UserID. This is a specific verb and resource, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (though none are similar listing tools).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied through the description and parameter explanations (e.g., department_id 0 means all members), but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or exclusions is provided. Sibling tools like lookup_user_id suggest a potential alternative, but no comparison is made.

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

Deploy Server