Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

iOffice MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

io_list_users

Read-only

List iOffice users with search, pagination, and sorting to retrieve workplace directory data. Filter by name or email, limit results, and choose sort order or view.

Instructions

List iOffice users. Supports search, pagination, and sorting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; "full" returns iOffice's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which iOffice fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.
limitNoMax results (default 50, max 100)
searchNoFilter by name or email
orderByNoProperty to sort by (default: id)
startAtNoPagination offset (default 0)
orderByTypeNoSort direction (default: asc)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv3.2.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • addedInput schema / properties / startAt / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / startAt / minimum
      Added value: +0
    • changedInput schema / properties / startAt / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
  2. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 confirms the read/list nature and names the query capabilities, but says nothing about result shape, default page size behavior in prose, or rate limits beyond what the schema already carries.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. Every word carries information.

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 six-parameter list tool with read-only annotations there is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say what a listed user record looks like, but it does not. The safety and parameter story is otherwise adequate, leaving a moderate gap.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the detailed view enum semantics. The description's mention of search/pagination/sorting adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List iOffice users') and enumerates the supported operations (search, pagination, sorting). It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the io_list_users / io_get_user naming pair makes the scope distinction self-evident.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the collection-level read versus io_get_user for a single user, but the description never states when to prefer one over the other or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives 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