Retrieve a paginated list of users, with optional filtering by project ID. Use pagination parameters to control the result set size.
List users
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items (max 250, default 250) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default 0) | |
| project_id | No | Filter by project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'List users.' It does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, response format, filtering semantics beyond the schema, or any other runtime characteristics; the agent gets no behavioral insight beyond the action itself.
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 extremely concise with no filler or repetition; the two-word phrase earns its place. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is so terse that it offers no additional structure beyond a bare statement of 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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and three optional parameters, yet the description provides no context about return values, pagination, or when this tool is appropriate. While the schema documents parameters, the overall description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool without extra inference.
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 all three parameters (limit, offset, project_id) are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 clearly states the operation (List) and the resource (users), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish get_users from sibling tools such as get_user, get_current_user, or get_user_by_email, all of which also retrieve user information.
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 about when to use get_users versus the several user-related sibling tools, nor any mention of exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer from the plural resource name that this tool returns multiple users, but no explicit usage context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.