list_membersList all household members with their assigned roles. Retrieve a clear overview of who belongs to the household without needing any parameters.
Lists the people in the household with their roles. Needs nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| members | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Needs nothing' and 'with their roles', but these are input/return details, not behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, yet it adds limited behavioral context beyond what structured data already provides.
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?
The description is only two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant wording. 'Needs nothing' adds practical information without bloat, making every word valuable.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations already present, the description is fully adequate. The output schema covers return values, and the description covers purpose and input requirements, leaving no gaps for correct invocation.
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?
The schema has zero properties, so the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description confirms this with 'Needs nothing', which aligns perfectly with the schema. No additional parameter meaning is needed because there are no parameters to explain.
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 states a specific verb 'lists', a clear resource 'people in the household', and adds 'with their roles' which distinguishes it from list_chores, list_devices, and other sibling list tools. An agent can immediately identify what this tool does and what it does not cover.
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?
The phrase 'Needs nothing' implies no input is required, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_household_summary or list_devices. Usage is implied through purpose rather than stated with clear when/when-not guidance or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.