Retrieve all team members and users in your inFlow account. Supports sorting, pagination, and count to manage inventory access.
List all team members/users in the inFlow account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| sort | No | Property to sort by (e.g., name, email) | |
| count | No | ||
| sortDesc | No | Sort in descending order | |
| includeCount | No | Include total record count in response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It omits pagination (skip/count), authentication needs, rate limits, and return shape, and 'all' is potentially misleading given the paginated schema.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool name, even though it under-specifies elsewhere.
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?
Given 5 parameters, 60% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain pagination behavior, total counts, or response structure.
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 only 60% (skip and count are undocumented), and the description adds no parameter meaning. With 5 parameters and no compensation, an agent cannot tell what skip/count do or their defaults.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('team members/users') with account scope ('in the inFlow account'). No sibling tool covers team members, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are named. The word 'all' implies an unfiltered account-wide listing, but an agent gets no guidance on pagination or when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.