Retrieves the members of a LegendKeeper world and their roles, with emails shown only to ADMIN keys. Pass a project name or omit it to use the default world.
List the members of the world and their roles (emails are only visible to ADMIN keys).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Configured project (world) name. Omit to use the default project; see list_projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: email fields are conditionally redacted based on ADMIN key privileges. That conditional-disclosure detail is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs before promising a caller email data.
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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the privilege caveat tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (members and roles) and the one surprising behavior (email redaction). It stops short of noting pagination or result-size behavior, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage (including the 'omit to use default; see list_projects' hint). The description adds nothing about the project argument, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried semantics applies.
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 and resource ('List the members of the world') plus what is returned ('their roles'), so the agent knows exactly what this does. No sibling is a plausible substitute (the other list_* tools cover projects, tags, templates, calendars, assets), but the description never names that distinction explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites for the caller. The ADMIN-key note is about data visibility rather than invocation guidance, so the agent must infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.