List all CheckMK users in your monitoring environment to view accounts and manage access.
👥 List users - Show all CheckMK users
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "vibemk_get_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating side effects. 'List' and 'Show' clearly signal a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made or mention permissions or other behavioral caveats.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'List users' immediately states the action and object, followed by a short clarification. There is no redundant or irrelevant content.
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?
The description gives the essential scope but does not describe the returned user data, response shape, pagination, or any limiting conditions. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about what 'all users' includes would improve completeness.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema is empty, so parameter-level semantics are not applicable. The description still adds useful scope by specifying 'all CheckMK users', which is sufficient for a parameterless read operation.
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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('users'), scoped to 'all CheckMK users'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from user mutation tools and other listing tools.
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 description implies when to use it but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like create_user, update_user, or get_contact_groups. It gives no direct guidance on when this tool is preferable or how it differs from related listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.