slack_list_usersList users in a Slack workspace with pagination controls to retrieve member accounts for read-only MCP integrations.
List users in the Slack workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max users to return, 1-1000 (default: 200) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from previous response |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Pagination cursor from previous response"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Max users to return, 1-1000 (default: 200)"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description needn't restate it, but it adds essentially nothing beyond the name: no mention of pagination via cursor, no note on whether bots/deactivated users are included, no guidance on result size defaults. For a paginated listing tool this leaves behavior undisclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined concision.
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?
An output schema exists and the params are fully documented, so the core contract is covered. What is missing for a paginated list tool is guidance on iterating cursors and on result scope (all workspace members vs. active only), which the description never addresses.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both limit and cursor are fully documented in the schema, and the default 200 is stated there. The description contributes no additional semantics, which is acceptable at the baseline when the schema does the work.
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?
Specific verb ("List") plus resource ("users in the Slack workspace") makes the operation unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as slack_get_user_info, slack_get_user_profile, or slack_list_channel_members, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With six sibling tools touching users or membership, the absence of a routing cue (workspace-wide listing vs. single-user lookup vs. per-channel membership) is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.