teamhood_list_usersRetrieve the user list with names, emails, and last activity dates to find a colleague's user ID for time logs. Optionally filter by name or email.
Geeft de gebruikerslijst met naam, e-mail en waar beschikbaar de laatste activiteitsdatum. Gebruik dit om het user-ID van een collega te vinden voor time logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Optioneel: filter op naam of e-mail, hoofdletterongevoelig. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a list/read operation, the returned fields, and that last activity date is only provided 'waar beschikbaar'. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or whether filtering is server- or client-side, but the basic behavior is transparent enough.
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?
Two short sentences: the first states what the tool returns is front-loaded, the second gives the main use case. No filler or redundant wording.
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?
For a simple optional-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers enough: the input parameter is documented in the schema دریافت, and the description explains the output fields and common use case. It does not describe limits or response shape, but complexity is low.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single optional 'search' parameter as a case-insensitive name/email filter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Geeft de gebruikerslijst') and identifies the returned resource (users with name, email, and last activity date). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_workspaces or search_items, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to find a colleague's user-ID for time logs. It does not provide exclusions or compare with alternatives, but it gives a clear, practical invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.