Retrieve FreeIPA users and filter by UID, full name, or email to quickly locate matching accounts.
List users in FreeIPA. Optionally filter by UID, full name (cn), or email address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cn | No | Filter by full name — substring match | |
| uid | No | Filter by UID (login name) — substring match | |
| No | Filter by email address — substring match | ||
| limit | No | Maximum number of users to return (default 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation through 'List users,' and mentions optional filters. It does not describe pagination behavior, ordering, or whether results are truncated beyond the schema's limit parameter, leaving some behavioral context undisclosed.
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. It states the core action and the optional filtering capability immediately, efficiently conveying the essential information.
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, fully-optional-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the domain, the action, and the available filters. A minor gap is not mentioning that get_user exists for retrieving details of a specific user, but this is not required for a basic invocation.
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%, so the schema already documents each parameter and its substring-match behavior. The description adds only a light restatement of the filterable fields, which is useful but does not provide meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 clear verb and resource: 'List users in FreeIPA,' and identifies the supported filter fields (UID, cn, mail). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_user, which likely retrieves a single user, so it stops short of fully differentiating from alternatives.
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 implies usage through 'Optionally filter by UID, full name (cn), or email address,' which tells the agent that all filters are optional and what they target. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over get_user or mention any exclusions, so the routing guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.