cnc-mcp

List Users

cnc_list_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Crosswork user accounts with their role, status, and device access groups to verify an account exists and review its assigned privileges.

Instructions

List the Crosswork user accounts with their role, status and device access groups.

Read-only. Use it to confirm an account exists (Crosswork answers the same 'Invalid credentials' for an unknown username and a wrong password) and to see which role (PolicyId, e.g. 'admin') and device access groups (e.g. 'ALL-ACCESS') an account carries. The platform returns a dict keyed by username with PascalCase fields; this tool flattens it to a list and never returns the Password field.

Returns: str: Markdown listing, or JSON: {"count": int, "items": [{"username": str, "role": str, "first_name": str, "last_name": str, "status": str, "device_access_groups": [str, ...]}, ...]} On failure: "Error: " (403 -> the configured account lacks the user-administration privilege).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No	'markdown' for human-readable output, 'json' for complete data.	markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces that while adding non-obvious traits: the Password field is never returned, the platform's PascalCase dict is flattened to a list, and a 403 indicates the configured account lacks user-administration privilege. These are genuinely useful behaviors not present in structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose, then usage, then returns and failure modes in labeled blocks. The Returns section is fairly long, but every element (count/items field names, error prefix) carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description fully covers return shape, field names, failure string format, and the 403 case, so an agent can call and interpret results without further inference.

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?

Only one optional parameter (response_format) and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage. The description nevertheless earns credit by tying each format to a concrete return shape in the Returns block, going beyond the schema's terse enum description.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (Crosswork user accounts) and enumerates the fields returned (role, status, device access groups). No sibling tool competes for this resource, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the device/topology/provider listings.

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?

Explicitly gives two use cases: confirming an account exists (with a useful rationale about identical 'Invalid credentials' responses) and inspecting role/device access groups. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none exist among the siblings, so context is clear without them.

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