Lists Firebase Auth emulator accounts, returning uid, email, phone, display name, claims, and provider data. Use pageToken and maxResults to paginate through users for review or management.
List Auth emulator accounts (accounts:batchGet) with uid, email, phone, display name, claims and provider data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageToken | No | Continue a previous listing | |
| maxResults | No | Page size; default 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the shape of each returned account (uid, email, phone, display name, claims, provider data), which substitutes for the absent output schema, but says nothing about ordering, result caps, whether disabled users are included, or pagination semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, the backend call, and the return payload — no filler, nothing an agent must scan past to find the core purpose.
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 two-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, the backend method, and the fields returned. Minor gaps remain around ordering and whether pagination terminates with a token, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.
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 100% — pageToken is documented as "Continue a previous listing" and maxResults as "Page size; default 100". The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List Auth emulator accounts") and even names the underlying API (accounts:batchGet), plus the fields returned. It is clear this enumerates accounts rather than acting on one, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with auth_get_user for single-record lookups.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb "List" — an agent can infer this is the enumeration path versus the single-user siblings like auth_get_user or the mutating auth_set_claims/auth_disable_user. However there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, and no guidance on when to page versus fetch everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.