Ask GorillaDesk (gorilladesk-mcp)

who_are_my_technicians

Read-onlyIdempotent

List GorillaDesk users and their roles to see who are your technicians and team members. Get a clear answer to 'Who's on my team?' in plain English.

Instructions

Answer: "Who are my technicians?", "Who's on my team?"

Lists GorillaDesk users with roles.

Tool call template

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": "who_are_my_technicians"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's safety profile is covered. It adds that the tool returns users with roles, but doesn't disclose details like pagination or active/inactive status. This is acceptable for a simple list tool with no parameters.

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?

The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and example queries. Every word adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params), rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and existing output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly communicates what the tool does and when to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly implies no input is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists GorillaDesk users with roles, which is a specific verb+resource combination. The example questions help distinguish it from other user-related tools like search_users by focusing on technicians/team.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear trigger phrases ("Who are my technicians?", "Who's on my team?"), indicating when the tool should be used. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this over sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.