list_households_membersRetrieve all users in the current household. Supports pagination, ordering, and filtering to locate specific members.
Returns all users belonging to the current household
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| perPage | No | ||
| queryFilter | No | ||
| orderDirection | No | ||
| paginationSeed | No | ||
| accept-language | No | ||
| orderByNullPosition | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool returns users, but it does not mention pagination behavior despite eight pagination-related parameters, nor does it clarify whether 'all users' means a single unpaginated response or a pageable collection.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is under-specified, but that is better addressed by the completeness dimension; structurally it is concise and easy to scan.
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?
With no annotations and zero schema coverage for parameters, the one-line description is not enough to support correct invocation beyond a trivial no-argument call. It fails to explain pagination, filtering, ordering, or the authentication context implied by 'current household,' even though an output schema exists.
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 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the eight parameters. An agent cannot determine what queryFilter accepts, which fields orderBy supports, what paginationSeed means, or how perPage behaves.
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 verb and resource: 'Returns all users belonging to the current household.' The phrase 'current household' provides useful scope that separates it from group-level member tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling alternatives like list_groups_members or list_households_self.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as being authenticated to a household. Given the large sibling list containing similar 'list' tools, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.