stashcat-api-mcp

list_managed_users

Retrieve managed users for a company, with optional search, group filter, and pagination controls for admin use.

Instructions

Lists managed users in a company (for admins).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company_id": "<company_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_managed_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Limit results
`offset`	No	Offset for pagination
`search`	No	Search query
`group_ids`	No	Filter by group IDs
`company_id`	Yes	Company ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It implies a read operation, and '(for admins)' hints at permission requirements, but it does not explicitly state that this requires admin privileges or that it is read-only. It also does not disclose any pagination defaults or response structure beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource. The '(for admins)' qualifier is efficiently placed. There is no wasted wording.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 params) and absence of an output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It lacks an explanation of what constitutes a 'managed user' versus other user list tools, and does not describe the return value or pagination behavior. However, it does convey the core purpose and admin restriction.

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?

The input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no parameter semantics. It does not elaborate on parameters like limit, offset, search, or group_ids, but the schema already handles those. A baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('managed users in a company'), and the parenthetical '(for admins)' adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like list_company_members or get_all_company_members, so the distinguishing factor is implied rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations. The '(for admins)' hint is too implicit to guide tool selection.

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

Deploy Server