Casefile

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List participants

list_participants

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the participant registry of humans and permanent agents who can receive questions, excluding temporary agents; supports paging.

Instructions

Lists the participant registry: humans and permanent agents, the possible addressees of a question. Temporary agents are not registered and are absent from it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Page size. Without a value, the installation's default page size
`cursor`	No	`next_cursor` of the previous page; without it, the first page

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`next_cursor`	Yes	Cursor of the next page, sent back as `cursor`; `null` means this page is the last one

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedv0.5.2Sep 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / cursor / description

Previous value: -"Продолжение выдачи: значение `next_cursor` из прошлого ответа"New value: +"`next_cursor` of the previous page; without it, the first page"

changedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Previous value: -"Сколько записей вернуть за раз. Без значения — размер страницы установки"New value: +"Page size. Without a value, the installation's default page size"

removedInput schema / properties / limit / examples
```
Removed value: -[
-  25
-]
```

removedOutput schema / $defs / ParticipantKind

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Род участника.\n\nРолей и прав за родом не стоит: любую запись и любой переход может сделать участник\nлюбого рода (`CONCEPT.md`, 3.1). Род нужен, чтобы читающий дело понимал, кто\nговорит, и чтобы интерфейс человека отличал людей от агентов в списке адресатов.",
-  "enum": [
-    "human",
-    "agent"
-  ],
-  "title": "ParticipantKind",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedOutput schema / $defs / ParticipantView / description

Previous value: -"Участник реестра: кому можно адресовать вопрос и что о нём известно."New value: +"Registry participant: a possible addressee of a question."

removedOutput schema / $defs / ParticipantView / properties / kind / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/$defs/ParticipantKind"
```

addedOutput schema / $defs / ParticipantView / properties / kind / description

Added value: +"Kind of participant. It grants no rights: participants of either kind can make any entry and any transition"

addedOutput schema / $defs / ParticipantView / properties / kind / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "human",
+  "agent"
+]
```
addedOutput schema / $defs / ParticipantView / properties / kind / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

addedOutput schema / properties / next_cursor / description

Added value: +"Cursor of the next page, sent back as `cursor`; `null` means this page is the last one"

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the registry contains humans and permanent agents only, and temporary agents are deliberately excluded, which is non-obvious and affects result interpretation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then the scope qualifier. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete for a read-only paginated list; only explicit pagination guidance (e.g., how limit/cursor interact) would add much, and that lives in the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both limit and cursor are already documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing about pagination semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (participant registry), and defines the resource's scope: humans and permanent agents, the possible addressees of a question. It also carves out what the registry is not (temporary agents are absent), which lets an agent distinguish it from the register_participant/update_participant siblings.

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 is implied by the semantic framing ('the possible addressees of a question'), which tells the agent when the list is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives such as register_participant. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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