Skip to main content
Glama

List Group Members

list_group_members
Read-only

List all members of a group.

Instructions

List all members of a group.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesThe Canvas group ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / group_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
      +    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
      +    "type": "integer"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
      +    "type": "string"
      +  }
      +]
    • removedInput schema / properties / group_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.11
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv1.18.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no indication of what happens for a group with many members or a missing/inaccessible group.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the key action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the basic contract. It remains thin on sibling differentiation and return-shape/pagination expectations in a very large toolset, but nothing critical for invoking it is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter (group_id) fully documented as 'The Canvas group ID' with a type/pattern constraint. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all members of a group'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_groups, list_course_users, or list_appointment_group_users, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 list_groups (which presumably lists groups rather than their members) or other user-listing tools. No prerequisites, no context about which group types are supported, and no exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools