list_usersList team members on a Signable account with their roles (User, Admin, or Super-Admin). Optionally include email addresses for each user.
Team members on this Signable account with their role (User, Admin or Super-Admin). Emails are only returned with include_contact_details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_results | No | ||
| include_contact_details | No | Include user email addresses |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral condition: emails are returned only when include_contact_details is set. It does not describe pagination or result composition, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context.
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 put the primary purpose first and contain no filler. The conditional email behavior is efficiently stated in the second sentence.
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?
The definition is adequate for a simple read-only list call with two optional parameters, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world behavior. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the return shape beyond role/email condition, nor the intended meaning of max_results.
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?
Only one of two parameters has a schema description (include_contact_details), and the tool description mainly restates that parameter's effect ('emails are only returned with include_contact_details'). max_results is left with no semantic explanation in either schema or description, so the low coverage is not fully compensated.
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?
Description identifies the resource (team members on the Signable account) and the role categories returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools for contacts, envelopes, and templates. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Lists', but the title and content make the purpose clear.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over find_contacts, list_envelopes, or list_templates, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The description implies it is for account users, but leaves the comparison to sibling tools implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.