list_group_membersRetrieve the people in a wiki group by group name or ID, using cursor and limit parameters to page through large member lists.
List the people in a group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | Yes | Group name or id from list_groups. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of items to return. | |
| cursor | No | Value of next_cursor from a previous call, to get more items. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never mentions that results are paginated via limit/cursor, nor how members are ordered or what identity fields come back.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally sound.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a paginated list tool, the description should at least hint that results are paged and that group ids come from list_groups, leaving the definition barely adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with limit, cursor, and the group reference (pointing at list_groups) all documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, which is the baseline 3 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb (list) and resource (people in a group), so its intent is unambiguous. It fails to differentiate from close siblings such as list_space_members, list_workspace_members, or list_groups, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many membership-listing siblings, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this lists group members rather than space or workspace members.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.